[2009] UGHC 11

[2009] UGHC 11

The court found that the applicant was made aware of all conditions required for the setting aside of the ex-parte judgment but chose not to comply with the financial deposit requirements. The assertion that the applicant was not informed by his lawyers was unsupported by any affidavit or evidence from those...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGHC 11
Parties
Applicant: Wanyama Bakulu t/a Bakulu Junior Coach; Respondent: Kibwota Santanino Layoo
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Misc. Appl. No. 4 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Orders
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Execution of Decree, Compliance With Court Orders, Negligence, Damages for Wrongful Death
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment Execution of Decree Compliance With Court Orders Negligence Damages for Wrongful Death

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wanyama Bakulu t/a Bakulu Junior Coach

Applicant

Kibwota Santanino Layoo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Orders

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement of the orders previously granted for setting aside the ex-parte judgment.
  2. 2 Whether failure to comply with all conditions set by the court justifies vacation of the setting aside order and continuation of execution.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was properly informed of the conditions imposed by the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was made aware of all conditions required for the setting aside of the ex-parte judgment but chose not to comply with the financial deposit requirements. The assertion that the applicant was not informed by his lawyers was unsupported by any affidavit or evidence from those lawyers. The applicant only partially complied by filing a written statement of defence but failed to deposit the sums ordered by the court. The court held that selective compliance with court orders undermines the administration of justice and that the applicant's conduct did not warrant the exercise of discretion in his favour. Consequently, the application for reinstatement was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for reinstatement of orders is disallowed and stands dismissed.
  • The respondent is awarded costs of the dismissed application.