Share
Nyakana v Luyiga (Miscellaneous Application 452 of 2023) [2023] UGHCLD 404 (23 November 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] UGHCLD 404
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nassuna Matovu, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 452 of 2023
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nassuna Matovu, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 452 of 2023
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant was not duly served with court process, as service was effected on advocates who were not on record for the applicant. There was no evidence that the applicant had changed legal representation or instructed the firm that was served. The failure to serve the correct advocates deprived the applicant of his right to be heard, constituting sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte taxation ruling. The court emphasized that justice requires all parties be given an opportunity to be heard, and any process that denies this right is fundamentally flawed. Accordingly, the ex parte taxation ruling was set aside and the matter ordered to be heard inter-party.
Court disposition
application granted; ex parte taxation ruling set aside; matter to be heard inter-party
Orders
- The ex parte taxation ruling of 25/1/2023 is set aside.
- The matter shall be heard inter-party.
- Each party shall bear their own costs for this application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Godfrey Niyakana
Applicant Counsel: Kabega Bogezi & Bukenya AdvocatesLuyiga Dayid
Respondent Counsel: Barnabus D. K. Dyadi & Co. Advocates03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Taxation Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant was duly served with court process before the taxation application was heard.
- 02
Whether failure to serve the applicant justified setting aside the ex parte taxation ruling.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that he was never served with court process before the taxation application was heard, and therefore was denied the opportunity to be heard, resulting in an injustice.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the applicant was duly served with court process through his advocates, M/s. Barnabus Dyadi & Co. Advocates.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of natural justice and Ugandan civil procedure
A party must be properly served with court process to ensure the right to be heard is upheld.
- 02
Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Ex parte proceedings may be set aside where sufficient cause is shown for non-attendance due to lack of service.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant was not duly served with court process, as service was effected on advocates who were not on record for the applicant. There was no evidence that the applicant had changed legal representation or instructed the firm that was served. The failure to serve the correct advocates deprived the applicant of his right to be heard, constituting sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte taxation ruling. The court emphasized that justice requires all parties be given an opportunity to be heard, and any process that denies this right is fundamentally flawed. Accordingly, the ex parte taxation ruling was set aside and the matter ordered to be heard inter-party.
Obiter and limits
- The circumstances under which the respondent opted to serve advocates not on record remain unclear.
- Each party shall bear their own costs for this application.
Court disposition
application granted; ex parte taxation ruling set aside; matter to be heard inter-party
- The ex parte taxation ruling of 25/1/2023 is set aside.
- The matter shall be heard inter-party.
- Each party shall bear their own costs for this application.
Source and reliance status
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA INTHE HIGH COURT OFUGANDAAT KAMPAI. A LAND DIVISION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 452 OF 2023 ARISING FROM TAXATION APPLICATION NO. 222OF 2022 ARISING FROM EMA NO. 228 OF 2OI8 ARISNG FROM HCCS NO. OO29 OF 2016. GODFREY NIYAKANA APPLICANT VERSUS LUYIGADAYID RESPONDENT
BEFORE HON. I-ADY JUSTICE FLAVIA NASSUNA MATOW RULING.
This matter was referted to the iudge by the deputy tegistrar aftet realising that she had no jurisdiction to entcrtain the application. At the time the same was referred to the judge parties had already filed their respective submissions.
Aftcr carefully srudying thc cntire record of proceedings I noted as follows:
- a) The applicant sceks to set aside thc expatte taxation ruling that was issued by the dcputy registrar of 25 / 1 / 2023 in relation to thc above matter. - b) The basis of the application is that the applicant was nevet served with court proccss befote the taxation application was heard. - c) The tespondent insisted that the applicant was duly scrved with court process through his advocates M/s. Barnabus Dyadi & Co Advocates-
- d) However, perusal of the record shows that at all material times applicant's advocates were M/s/ I(abega Bogezi & Bukenya Advocates. Indeed, these were the advocates who represented him up to the time the judgment was delivered. - e) 'I'here is nothing on record to show that the applicant ever withdrew instructions from M/s I(abcga,Bogezi & Bukenya advocates and instructed M/s. Barnabus D. I( Dyadi & Co. Advocates. - f) The circumstances undet which the respondent opted to serve M/s Barnabus D. K. Dyadi & Co. Adocates are not clear. - g) It is therefore true that the applicant was flot duly servcd with court process befote the court opted to proceed exparte against him. The applicant has thus shown sufficient cause as to why he did not attend court on the day the taxation application was heard. He was not served with court process, which denied him a right to be heard and thus occasioned an injustice to him. - h) F-or the above reasons, he said taxation ruling is accordingly hereby set aside and the matter should be heatd inter-party.
Each party shall bear their costs for this application.
DATED at Kampalathis. \*# Dayof <sup>23</sup>
ANASSUNAMATOVU JUDGE.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.