Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Akibawe v Mango Fund Inc (Miscellaneous Application 1093 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 370 (26 November 2024)
The court set aside a default judgment after finding that summons had not been effectively served on the applicant, despite WhatsApp communications.
Worldwide Logistics Limited v Care Freight Services Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1631 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 7 (29 January 2024)
The court found that it was unclear whether Faith Massa was a principal officer at the time of service, as her designation as country manager was not consistently used. The ambiguity in her role meant that proper service under Order 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules was not established. Additionally, the Applicant raised a dispute regarding the amount owed, indicating the existence of triable issues. In the interest of justice and considering the wide discretion courts have to set aside ex parte judgments, the interlocutory judgment was set aside and the Applicant was granted leave to file a de…
Source excerpt
Finca Uganda Limited(MDI) v Semakula (Miscellaneous Application 26 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 159 (22 December 2023)
The High Court struck out Finca Uganda Ltd’s appeal as incompetent for being filed out of time without leave, and awarded costs to the respondent.
Senkubuge and Another v Kibirango (Miscellaneous Application 1089 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 301 (17 November 2022)
The court found that the applicants had shown sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the default judgment, as the failure to file a defence was due to the mistake of their previous counsel and not their own dilatory conduct. The applicants acted promptly by instructing new counsel and filing the application within a reasonable period (60 days from judgment). The court held that mistakes of counsel should not be visited on innocent litigants who have acted diligently. The preliminary objection regarding the authority to swear the affidavit was overruled, as the applicants were jointly sued…
Source excerpt
Departed Asians Custodian Board v Kasaija and 245 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 149 (26 August 2022)
The court found that the interlocutory judgment was irregularly entered under O.9 r.8 CPR because the counterclaim was not for pecuniary damages or detention of goods. The proper procedure would have been to proceed as if a defence had been filed and set the matter for hearing ex parte. Although the applicant was grossly negligent in failing to ensure a defence was filed, the interests of justice and the powers vested in the court under S.33 of the Judicature Act warranted setting aside the interlocutory judgment and granting leave to file a defence. The court emphasized that all matters in c…
Source excerpt
Matayo Kyaligonza v Kayokamu EWngineering Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1802 of 2020) [2021] UGHCLD 90 (30 July 2021)
The High Court held that service on the applicant was irregular, but allowed him 14 days to file a defence out of time and awarded him costs.
Amuru District Local Government Vs Okello Okumu (Misc. Application No. 053/2014) [2015] UGHCCD 29 (17 February 2015)
The application for reinstatement is not barred by res judicata because the previous dismissal was for non-attendance and not a determination on the merits. The applicant was not aware of the hearing date due to the negligence of its former counsel, and there is no evidence of deliberate delay or abuse of process. The court found that it would be unjust to penalize the applicant for the advocate's negligence, especially where the applicant has since engaged new counsel and is actively pursuing its rights. Both preliminary objections were overruled, and the application for reinstatement was al…
Source excerpt
Serunjoji v Kasiwukira (Miscellaneous Application No. 349 of 2012) [2012] UGHC 275 (6 December 2012)
The court found that the applicant was not in Uganda at the time substituted service was effected by advertisement in a local newspaper, as evidenced by passport and visa records. Since the applicant was out of jurisdiction, substituted service was ineffective and proper service should have been effected out of jurisdiction or through the applicant's agent. The respondent failed to show that the applicant was within Uganda when the summons were issued, and there was no evidence to contradict the applicant's assertion of absence. The objection to the applicant's affidavit was dismissed due to…
Source excerpt
