Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April.

2016

SUMMARY PROCEDURE
1. Introduction
In Uganda, civil Suits are governed by the Civil Procedure Act1 which
under Section 19 provides that “Every suit shall be instituted in such
manner as may be prescribed by the rules”. Therefore

Summary Procedure is provided for under Order 36 Rule 2 of the Civil

Procedure Rules2 which gives an option to a plaintiff whose claim is
liquidated in nature to commence a suit by way of specially endorsed plaint
as opposed to other modes of procedure.

2. Rationale
The rationale for summary procedure was set out by Hon. Justice Obura (as
she then was) in the locus case of Kyoma Byemaro John V Agro Finance
Trust Limited3 when she stated that “As it was held in the case of Zola &
Another v Ralli Brothers Ltd. & Another [1969] EA 691 at page 694, Order
36 is intended to enable a plaintiff with a liquidated claim, to which there is
clearly no good defence to obtain a quick and summary judgment without
being unnecessarily kept from what is due to him by the delaying tactics of
the defendant”.

3. General Principles and applicability of summary procedure.

It should therefore be noted from the onset that summary procedure is a

very unique mode of commencing a suit and that it is only applicable in
special circumstances. The first being that it is only applicable to matters
filled in the High Court, a court presided over by chief magistrate and one
by a magistrate Grade One as was stated in the locus celebrated case of
Nakabugo Co-operative society V Livingstone Changas4.

Summary procedure may be invoked by government as a plaintiff but no

such suit can be commenced against Attorney general as is provided under
Rule 17 of Civil Procedure (Government Proceedings) Rules. It follows
therefore that whereas a default judgment may be obtained against a

1
Cap 71
2
S.I 71-1
3
HCMA No. 376 of 2009
4
HCCS No. 4 of 1991
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 1
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

defendant under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules5, no such

judgment may be obtained against government. This was clearly stated held
by Hon. Justice Katutsi in the celebrated case of Agasa Maingi V A.G6
when he stated that“Judgment shall not be entered and no order shall be
made, against the Government in default of appearance or pleading under
any provision of the principal rules without leave of the court, and
application for such leave shall be made by summons served not less than
seven days before the return day.

Summary procedure is also restricted to liquidated demand for money or

debts arising under a contract, acknowledgement, undertaking, bills of
exchange or promissory notes among others as listed under Order 36 rule
2 of the Civil Procedure Rules7. Liquidated demand was defined by Hon.
Justice Madrama in the locus case of Vallery Allia V Allionzi John 8 the
learned judge said “that the terms "liquidated demand" and "pecuniary
damages" may be distinguished. This is what I said:According to Stroud’s
judicial dictionary, the terms “liquidated demand” inter alia means and
includes, the amount on a bill of exchange, definite interest on a contract or
under a statute, a sum certain in money, a statutory demand for the
payment of a total debt and an amount due on a judgment.”

It should therefore be noted that a claim for liquidated demand cannot be

combined with any other claim (unliquidated) in a summary suit under
Order 36 of the Civil Procedure rules. This was held by Hon.
JusticeMulyagonja in the locus case of Begumisa George V East African
Development Bank9“… where a plaint endorsed for summary procedure
contains claims correctly endorsed and other claims, the court may, by O.33
rule 3 to rule 7 and 10, deal with the claims correctly specially endorsed as
if no other claim had been included therein and allow the action to proceed
as respects the residue of the claim, the court having no power under O.33
to strike out any part of the claim but being unable to give summary
judgment for any relief not within the scope of O.33 rule 2 aforesaid.”

Where there are mixed claims of liquidated and unliquidated, the court may
in the exercise of its mandate under Article 126 (2) (e) of the Constitution
5
Ibid
6
HCCS No. 4 of 1991
7
S.I 71-1
8
HCCS No 157 of 2010 (2012)
9
HCMA No. 0451 of 2010
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 2
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

sever the unliquidated demand and proceed to entertain the liquidated

demand as was stated by Hon Justice Egonda Ntende in the celebrated case
of Dembe Trading Enterprises Ltd V Uganda Confidential Ltd 10 where
he held that “In the case at hand, the plaint has coupled or conjoined the
liquidated demands and pecuniary damages. In such a situation rule 8 would be
inapplicable, given that in the context of this case, it applies only when the claim is
for damages only. That rule would not apply in the case of conjoined claims. If a
plaintiff desires to proceed with both different categories of claims, it would
appear, it is to other rules that it must be directed. Probably Order 9 Rule 10, the
general rule, may be appropriate. Or should plaintiff drop the claim for general
damages, rule 6 may apply and the plaintiff may obtain final judgment on the
liquidated claims, if it has complied with Order 9 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure
Rules. ”
This in effect implies that interest can also be claimed under the same order
provided that such interest is equally liquidated in nature as was clearly
stated by Hon. Justice Mulyagonja in the locus case of Begumisa George V
East African Development Bank11 where he held that “I reviewed the
authorities cited by Mr. Guma, i.e. the decisions in Arjabu Kasule v. F. T.
Kawesa [1957] EA 611 and E. M. Cornwell & Co. Ltd. v. Shantaguari
Dahyabhai Desai (1941) 6 ULR 103. It is true that they reflect the position
that a claim under O.36 should not include interest, except where the
document sued upon includes an agreement on interest. However, the
decision in Arjabu Kasule discusses the question further. Relying on the
decision in Uganda Transport Co. Ltd. v. Count de la Pasture (3) (1954), 21
EACA 163, it was held that:“… where a plaint endorsed for summary
procedure contains claims correctly endorsed and other claims, the court
may, by O.33 rule 3 to rule 7 and 10, deal with the claims correctly specially
endorsed as if no other claim had been included therein and allow the
action to proceed as respects the residue of the claim, the court having no
power under O.33 to strike out any part of the claim but being unable to
give summary judgment for any relief not within the scope of O.33 rule 2
aforesaid.”The ratio that a claim including interest cannot be brought under
summary procedure is therefore not applicable to every suit. It will be
necessary here to first establish whether the rest of the respondent’s claim
was validly brought under O.36 rule 2 CPR before I come to a decision that
the suit was wrongly endorsed under Order 36 because of a claim for
interest”.
10
HCCS No. 0612 of 2006
11
HCMA No. 0451 of 2010
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 3
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

Summary procedure as provided under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure

Rules12 may also apply to recovery of premises with or without a claim for
rent where a tenancy has expired or has been determined by notice.

4. Application for leave to appear and defend

As I had pointed out earlier, it is noteworthy that summary procedure as
presented under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules13 is a very unique
and quiet distinct from other suits. Therefore, where a plaintiff commences
a suit by way of specially endorsed plaint, he/she will be issued with
summons in a summary plaint pursuant to Order 5 rule 3 of the Civil
Procedure Rules14.

Therefore, a defendant so served with the said summons in a summary

plaint is required to enter appearance within 10 days from the date of
service by way of filling an application for leave to appear and defend under
Order 36 rule 4 of the CPR. This was held by Hon. Justice Egonda
Ntennde in the locus case of Ready Agro-Suppliers & 2 Ors V Uganda
Development Bank 15 that “The foregoing provisions are clear in what is
demanded of the defendant. He/She must state by way of affidavit whether
the defence alleged goes to the whole or to part only of the plaintiff’s claim,
and if only part, which part of the plaintiff’s claim. The response must be
specific and not general or evasive, so as to leave no one in doubt, as to the
extent of the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant genuinely disputes”

It should therefore be noted that a defendant to a summary suit cannot file

his/her defense unless and until leave is granted by court. The said
application is by way of notice of motion accompanied by a valid affidavit
under Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules as was stated by Hon.
Justice Yorokamu Bamwine in the locus case of Francis W. Bwenjye V
Haki Bonera16 that “Suffice it to say, first of all, that all applications to the
court, except where otherwise expressly provided for under the Civil
Procedure Rules, are by motion to be heard in open court. O.52 r.1 of the
Civil Procedure Rules is very clear on this. Secondly, applications for leave
to defend are provided for under O.36 r.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules”.
12
S.I 71-1

13
Ibid
14
Ibid
15
HCMA No. 0379 of 2005
16
HCCA No. 033 of 2009
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 4
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

As already noted above, in all summary suit time is of essence. This implies
that in application for leave to appear and defend, the court may grant
either conditional or unconditional leave to the applicant. This emanates
from the rational of summary procedure.

5. On what grounds may court grant an

applicant/defendant leave to appear and defend?
In order to answer the above question, it should be noted that such an
applicant must set out in his/her application issues of either law or fact or
both that warrant adjudication by way of hearing in his defence to the
claim. This was stated by Hon. Justice Mulyagonja in the locus case of
Begumisa George V East African Development Bank 17 that “The test
has evolved over the years. In Uganda, the decision in Maluku Interglobal
Trade Agency Ltd. v. Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65, is favoured and it
states the test at page 66 of the Bulletin as follows:-“Before leave to appear
and defend is granted the defendant must show by affidavit or otherwise
that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. When there is a
reasonable ground of defence to the claim, the plaintiff is not entitled to
summary judgment. The defendant is not bound to show a good defence on
the merits but should satisfy court that there was an issue or question in
dispute which ought to be tried and the court should not enter upon the
trial of the issue disclosed at this stage.””

This therefore raises the question as to when can court grant an

applicant/defendant an unconditional leave to appear and defend? To
answer this question, regard must be had to the judgment of Sir Kenneth
O’Connor in the land mark case of Suoza Figuerido V Moorings Hotel18
where the learned judge stated that “the general rule is that a defendant
who can show by affidavit that there is a bonafide triable issue should have
unconditional to appear and defend.” (Emphasis added).

The application must therefore show that the intended defence to the claim
is plausible and raises issues that merit consideration by the court. A
plausible defence does not mean one that must succeed but one that raises

17
HCMA No. 0451 of 2010
18
[1959] E.A 425
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 5
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

important question of law or fact and contest a claim of fact thereof in a

suit. This was the holding of Hon. JusticeYorokamu Bamwine in the locus
case of Uganda Micro-Enterprise Ltd V Micro-Finance Support
Center19 “It should be appreciated that before leave to appear and defend
is granted the Defendant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a
bonafide triable issue of fact or law. When there is a reasonable ground of
defence to the claim, the Plaintiff is not entitled to summary Judgment” .

It is therefore prudent practice for such an applicant/defendant to amend

the proposed written statement to the affidavit in support in order to
demonstrate the nature of the defence the/she has against the claim. This
was categorically stated by court in the locus case of U.C.B V Mukoome
Agencies20 that “the applicant/defendant should set out the questions of
law and fact to prove triable issues and to annex the written statement of
defence as a basis of ascertaining the plausible defence.”

Therefore, in considering the grounds upon which leave to appear and

defend may be granted, regard may be had to Mula21 who relies on the case
of Michalec engg & Mfg V Bank of Egypt 22 and gives five major
yardstick to determine this. They include;

a) If the defendant has satisfied court that he has a good defence,

to the claim on merits, he is entitled to unconditional leave,
b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a
fair or bonafide or reasonable defence, although not a possibly
good defence, he is entitled to unconditional leave,
c) If the defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed
sufficient to entitle him to defend, i.e if the affidavit discloses
that at the trial, he may be able to establish a defence to the
plaintiff’s claim, the court may impose conditions at the time of
granting leave; the conditions being as to the time of trial or the
mode of trial but not as to payment in to court or furnishing
security,
d) If the defendant has no defence, or if the defence is a sham or
illusory or practically moonshine, the defendant is not entitled
to leave and
19
HCCS No. 125 of 2005
20
[1982] HCB 22
21
The Civil Procedure Code; Lexis Nexis Butterworth, Volume l 4, 17th Edition @ page 189
22
A.I.R 1977 S.C 577
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 6
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

e) If the defendant has no defence, or if the defence is a sham or

illusory or practically moonshine, the court may show mercy to
the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence but at
the same time protect the plaintiff by imposing the condition
that the amount claimed should be paid to court or otherwise
secured.

This therefore shows that in the hearing, the court does not indulge in to
the merits of the defence on whether or not it will succeed in evidence
though the court must ascertain that the said defence is not a sham or a
bogus one. This was the holding of Hon justice Hellen Obura (as she then
was) in the locus case of Kyomya Byemaro John V Agro-Finance Trust
Ltd 23 where the learned judge held that “In light of the aforementioned
principle, the issue for determination in this application is whether the
defendant/applicant has by affidavit or otherwise disclosed a triable issue.
In determining this issue, I was mindful of the holding in Maluku
Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank Of Uganda [1985] HCB 66 that the
defendant/applicant does not have to show a good defence on the merits but
should satisfy court that there is an issue or question in dispute which
ought to be tried and the court should not enter upon the trial of issues
disclosed at this stage”

In addition to the above, it should also be noted that where there is a honest
dispute to a claim that involves an admission of a claim, then such
admission must be equivocal thus it must state the extent of the sum
admitted. This was categorically held by Hon. Justice Egonda Ntende in the
locus case of Ready Agro-Suppliers Ltd & Ors V U.D.B 24 where he stated
that “The foregoing provisions are clear in what is demanded of the
defendant. He/She must state by way of affidavit whether the defence
alleged goes to the whole or to part only of the plaintiff’s claim, and if only
part, which part of the plaintiff’s claim. The response must be specific and
not general or evasive, so as to leave no one in doubt, as to the extent of the
plaintiff’s claim that the defendant genuinely disputes”

The next sensitive question is that under what circumstances may court
grant conditional leave to an applicant/defendant? To answer this question,
regard must be had to the famous judgment of Hon. Justice Hellen Obura

23
HCMA No. 376 of 2011
24
HCMA No. 0379 of 2005
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 7
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

(as she then was) in the celebrated case of Tusker Mattresses (U) Ltd V
Royal Care Pharmaceuticals Ltd 25that “I agree with the submission of
counsel for the applicant that the contention of the applicant raises a triable
issue of law, that is, whether the tenancy agreement relied upon by the
respondent to bring its claim applies to the current relationship between
the applicant and the respondent. As was held in MALUKU INTERGLOBAL
TRADE AGENCY LTD (Supra), the defendant/applicant does not have to
show a good defence on the merits but should satisfy court that there is an
issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried and the court should
not enter upon the trial of issues disclosed at this stage I will grant the
applicant conditional leave to appear and defend the main suit . ”

In my opinion, the learned judge seemed to state that where in a summary

suit a defendant raises a defence that in effect does not deny the claim but
is in relation to an issue which is to be determined by court and that the
applicant is ready and willing to be bound by the decision of the court, then
such an applicant will be granted conditional leave to appear and defend.

6. Under what circumstances may court decline to grant

leave to appear and defend?
It should be noted that the grant of leave to appear and defend is not
automatic and that it will always depend on the circumstances of each case.
One of such circumstance is where the the intended defence does not raise
triable issue of law or fact. This was categorically stated by Hon. Justice
Mulyagonja in her judgment in the locus case of Begumisa George V East
African Development Bank26 where she stated that “It is therefore still
the position of the law in Uganda that an applicant who comes to court
seeking for leave to defend a suit under Order 36 CPR must show that
he/she has a good defence on the merits or that there are circumstances
showing reasonable grounds or a bona fide defence. The defence raised
must not be a sham.”

The other circumstance is where the said application for leave is brought
out of the specified time by the Civil Procedure Rules.27 This was the
ruling of Hon. Justice Arachi in the locus case of Zam Zam Noel & Ors V

25
HCMA No. 38 of 2010
26
HCMA No. 0451 of 2010
27
S.I 71-1
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 8
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

Post Bank Limited 28 when she stated that “Summons in the summary suit
were issued on the 24th July, 2008, the day after filing the suit, giving the
applicant ten (10) days from service thereof to apply for leave from this
court to defend the suit or else the respondent would be entitled to obtain a
decree for the amount claimed.”

7. What happens when a defendant defaults in applying

for leave to appear and defend or where the
application is dismissed?
It should be noted that the court before which a summary suit is filed may
on the application of the plaintiff enter judgment on default subject to
satisfaction of the following conditions;

a) The claim as set out in the specially endorsed plaint must

be liquidated in nature and one that falls within the claims
set under Order 36 rule 2 CPR,
b) That summons must have been issued and served on the
defendant in the manner provided for under Order 5 CPR
and there must be evidence of service thus an affidavit of
service. The above two positions were held by Order JSC
in his lead judgment in the locus case of Edinson
Kanyabwera V Pastori Tumwebaze29 stated that “With
the greatest respect, as I have already said in this
judgment, there was no evidence on record that the
defendant was served. Order 5, rule 17 of the C.P.R
provides that where summons have been served on the
defendant or his agent or other person on his behalf, the
serving officer, shall in all cases, make or annex or cause
to be annexed to the original summons an affidavit of
service stating the time when and the manner in which
the summons was served and name and address of the
person, if any, identifying the person served and
witnessing the delivery of the tender of the summons. The
provisions of this rule is mandatory, it was not complied
with in the instant case. What the rule stipulates about

28
HCMA No. 530 of 2008
29
SCCA No. 6 of 2004
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 9
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

service of summons, in my opinion, applies equally to

service of hearing notice.”
c) The 10days within which the defendant is supposed to
apply for leave to appear and defend must have lapsed
without the defendant filling such application or seeking
extension of time. This was the holding of Hon.Justice
Hellen Obura (as she then was) in the locus case of
Pinnacle Projects Ltd V Business in Motion 30 that
“This in my view strengthens counsel for the respondent’s
argument that on the 8th June, 2010 when judgment was
entered there was no pending application before this
Court and so it cannot be faulted for entering judgment
accordingly.”
d) Finally, the plaintiff must formally move court by way of
letter addressed to either the registrar if the matter is at
the high court or to the trial magistrate in case the matter
is in the magistrate court. This is provided for under the
Practice Direction No. 2 of 200231

Where the defendant applies for leave to appear and defend and the
application is dismissed on merit, the court will enter judgment against the
defendant/applicant and that constitutes a final determination of the matter.
This was the holding of Hon. Justice Arach in the locus case of Zam Zam
Noel & Ors V Post Bank Limited 32 that “The applicant was served with
summons on the 26th July 2008, but he had filed the said application on the
27th august 2008. This was one month after the expiry of the ten days
within which he was to apply. I found and rules in favor of the respondent.
As a consequence I dismissed the application, and entered judgment for the
respondent in the sum claimed against the applicant and the other two
defendants severally and jointly for the amount claimed together with
interest and costs of the application and the application and the suit order
O36 r 5.”

30
HCMA No. 362 of 2010
31
Judicial Powers of registrars (High Court)
32
HCMA No. 530 of 2008
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 10
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

Therefore, the remedy available to a defendant against whom such

judgment has been entered is either to appeal or apply for review whichever
is appropriate in the circumstances. This was the holding of Hon. Justice
Arach in the locus case of Zam Zam Noel & Ors V Post Bank Limited 33
that “This is because it is inconceivable that rule 11 was intended to allow a
person where application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit
was dismissed by court, to re-apply to the same court to set aside the
decree and allow the same person to apply for leave to appear and defend
to the same court. This is what the applicant is attempting to achieve by
this application…where an application for leave to appear and defend was
dismissed the only remedy is in my view an appeal against the dismissal
order.”

Where the defendant/applicant applies for leave and the same is struck out
on account of having been filled out of time or on grounds of incompetence,
court will proceed to enter judgment against the applicant/defendant and
where such applicant is aggrieved, the remedy available is either to appeal
or apply for review whichever is appropriate in the circumstances.

It should therefore be noted that in the two aforementioned circumstances,

it is not possible for the applicant/defendant to apply to set aside the
judgment or decree under Order 36 rule 11 of the CPR because the
defendant was heard and hence is not default judgment ie the defendant
appeared but never moved court as to why the judgment should not be
entered.

Where judgment is entered in default against the defendant on account of

failure to apply for leave to appear and defend, the remedy lies under
Order 36 rule 11 CPR depending on whether the defendant can satisfy
court on the requirements set under the same rule.

8. Setting aside default judgment/decree under passed in

a summary suit
It follows therefore that a defendant being a victim of a default decree or
judgment entered under Order 36 rule 3 may invoke the provisions of rule
11 of the same Order and apply to set aside the judgment or decree against
him/her.

33
Ibid
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 11
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

It should therefore be noted that for such an application to succeed, the

applicant show that his/her failure to enter appearance was as a result of
“good cause”. Order 36 rule 11 CPR does not define good cause
however, Hon. Justice Hellen Obura (as she then was) defined it in the locus
case of Pinnacle Projects Limited V Business in Motion 34 that “The
phrase “good cause” is not defined under the Rules but it is defined in Black’s Law
Dictionary, Seventh Edition, as; “a legally sufficient reason”.However, the phrase
“sufficient cause” that is normally used interchangeable with the phrase “good
cause” has been explained in a number of authorities. In the cases of: Mugo v
Wanjiri [1970] EA 481 at page 483. Njagi v Munyiri [1975]EA 179 at page 180 and
Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others [Supreme Court Civil
Application No. 9/86 reported in Kampala Law Report Volume 5 of 1993 at page 4]
it was held that sufficient reason must relate to the inability or failure to take the
particular step in time.”

One of the “good causes” envisaged in the above situation is where

defendant failed to enter appearance due to “non-service” of summons. This
was held by Mulenga JSC in his lead jugment in the landmark case of
Geofrey Gatete & Anor V William Kyobe 35 that “The Oxford Advanced
Learners’ Dictionary defines the word “effective” to mean “having the
desired effect; producing the intended result”. In that context, effective
service of summons means service of summons that produces the desired or
intended result. Conversely, non-effective service of summons means
service that does not produce such result. There can be no doubt that the
desired and intended result of serving summons on the defendant in a civil
suit is to make the defendant aware of the suit brought against him so that
he has the opportunity to respond to it by either defending the suit or
admitting liability and submitting to judgment. The surest mode of
achieving that result is serving the defendant in person. Rules of procedure,
however, provide for such diverse modes of serving summons that the
possibility of service failing to produce the intended result cannot be ruled
out in every case.”

This therefore implies that an applicant who is a victim of default judgment

under summary procedure owing to non-service of summons can
successfully apply to set aside such a judgment. This was the holding by
Hon Justice Obura (as she then was) in the locus case of Kensington

34
HCMA No. 362 of 2010
35
SCCA No. 7 of 2005.
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 12
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

Africa Limited V Pankaj Kumar Shah & Anor36 that “I am therefore

inclined to accept that the applicant was not aware of the suit at the time
the default judgment was entered. That being the case, the service of
summons on the applicant did not produce the desired effect of making the
applicant aware of the pending case. Consequently, I find that there was no
effective service of summons on the applicant.”

Upon lodging such an application to set aside the default judgment, it

should be noted that the burden of proof is on him/her to satisfy court that
service of summons was not effected upon him/her in the manner set out in
the rules. Hon. Madrama J. applied this principle in the case of David
Ssesanga v Greenland Bank Ltd (In Liquidation)37 and held that
effective service must produce the desired effect, which is to make the
defendant aware of the suit.

The defendant/applicant should file an omnibus application seeking to set

aside the judgment and decree as well as leave to appear and defend. It is
not prudent to merely apply to set aside the judgment and decree without
an order for leave to appear and defend. This also extends to stay of
execution where the plaintiff had commenced execution.

It follows from the foregoing that the applicant other than proving the
appropriate grounds for setting aside judgment, he/she is required to
demonstrate that there are triable issues or questions of law or fact that
merit adjudication by the court and warrant the grant of leave to appear
and defend. This was stated by Hon Justice Mukasa Lameck in his judgment
in the locus case of Ali Ndawula V R.L Jane38 that “it was held that before
setting aside an exparte judgment the Court has to be satisfied not only that
the defendant had some reasonable excuse for failing to enter appearance
but also that there is merit in the defence or in the case itself.”

In conclusion therefore, the applicant must set out the questions of law/fact
that constitute the alleged triable issues and as a matter of prudent practice
should annex the proposed written statement as a basis for court to
ascertain whether the applicant has a plausible defence to the claim or not.
This was held by Hon. Justice Mukasa Lameck in the locus case of Jubilee

36
HCMA No. 649 of 2012
37
HCMA No. 406 of 2006
38
HCMA No. 0624 of 2008
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 13
Assignment for week two 11TH- 16TH April. 2016

Insurance Co. Ltd V Fifi Transporters Ltd 39 that “In an application for
leave to defend a suit under summary procedure the law is that the
Applicant must show that there is a bonafide triable issue of fact or law.
Any defence raised should be stated with sufficient particulars as to appear
genuine and not generally vague statements denying liability”

39
HCMA No. 0211 of 2008
Prepared by Ruyonga Ramathan, Machel Nyambok Omondi and Kyokwijuka Sandra (Clerkship
Students) for Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama. High Court (Commercial Division)
Kampala. Page 14