[2012] UGCommC 174

[2012] UGCommC 174

The court found that the Applicant failed to file a defence within the prescribed time, but the reasons advanced—urgent travel and reliance on a business assistant—were given the benefit of doubt. The contract between the parties expressly provided that if development was refused by authorities, the vendor...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] UGCommC 174
Parties
Applicant: Kiyimba Eddie Kalema Lwembawoo; Respondent: Dooba Enterprises Ltd
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
27 April 2012
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 89 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment and for Leave to File Defence Out of Time
Outcome
Default judgment varied; partial judgment for Respondent; leave to defend on balance; time enlarged for defence; costs to abide outcome.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Extension of Time, Contract Frustration, Liquidated Demands, Sale of Land, Default Judgment
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment Extension of Time Contract Frustration Liquidated Demands Sale of Land Default Judgment

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiyimba Eddie Kalema Lwembawoo

Applicant

Dooba Enterprises Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment and for Leave to File Defence Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient cause has been shown to set aside the ex parte judgment entered against the Applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file a defence out of time.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant has a plausible defence to the Respondent's claim, specifically on the ground of frustration of contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant failed to file a defence within the prescribed time, but the reasons advanced—urgent travel and reliance on a business assistant—were given the benefit of doubt. The contract between the parties expressly provided that if development was refused by authorities, the vendor (Applicant) would refund the purchase price or provide alternative land. The Applicant did not deny liability to refund the money, and the Respondent had demanded a refund. The court held that the only plausible defence related to the portion of the claim not expressly admitted—namely, the unpaid balance of UGX 50,000,000/=. The default judgment was therefore varied: the Applicant was...

Court Disposition

Default judgment varied; partial judgment for Respondent; leave to defend on balance; time enlarged for defence; costs to abide outcome.

Orders

  • The Applicant shall pay the Plaintiff a sum of Uganda shillings 250,000,000/= with interest at 8% from up to the date of judgment in terms of order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules with costs.
  • Leave is granted to the Applicant to file a defence with respect to the sum of Uganda shillings 50,000,000/=.