[2013] UGHCCD 104

[2013] UGHCCD 104

The court found that the Appellants were properly served with summons and their claim of non-service was false. Ignorance of court procedure does not constitute sufficient cause to set aside an ex parte judgment, as ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The Appellants' reliance on their advocate's busy schedule did not amount to a mistake of counsel that would justify setting aside the judgment; if aggrieved, their remedy lay against their advocate, not the Respondent. The trial court exercised its discretion correctly in refusing to set aside the ex parte judgment. Regarding costs, the court held that costs follow the event and are at the court's discretion; the Respondent, as the...

Citation
[2013] UGHCCD 104
Parties
Appellant: Byansi Elias; Appellant: Burindi Budalatiff; Respondent: Kiryomunju Tofasi
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
6 August 2013
Case Number
HCT
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Service of Summons, Costs Award, Mistake of Counsel
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Ex Parte Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Service of Summons Costs Award Mistake of Counsel

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Byansi Elias

Appellant

Burindi Budalatiff

Appellant

Kiryomunju Tofasi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application to file defence out of time without considering the grounds thereof.
  2. 2 Whether the ruling and order of the trial Magistrate occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the trial Magistrate erred in awarding costs to the Respondent who had not entered appearance during the trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Appellants were properly served with summons and their claim of non-service was false. Ignorance of court procedure does not constitute sufficient cause to set aside an ex parte judgment, as ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The Appellants' reliance on their advocate's busy schedule did not amount to a mistake of counsel that would justify setting aside the judgment; if aggrieved, their remedy lay against their advocate, not the Respondent. The trial court exercised its discretion correctly in refusing to set aside the ex parte judgment. Regarding costs, the court held that costs follow the event and are at the court's discretion; the Respondent, as the...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.