High Court Rejects Application to Set Aside Default Judgment, Finding Counsel Negligent Despite ECCMIS Notifications

Waboga David
5 days ago
5 min read

FACTS

The Applicant, Kayonza Growers Tea Factory Limited, sought to set aside a default judgment and decree entered on November 6, 2024, in the underlying civil suit brought by the Respondent, Uni Movers & Logistics Limited.

The Applicant had previously filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2151 of 2023 on September 15, 2023, seeking leave to appear and defend the suit. This application was initially scheduled for hearing on July 10, 2024, but was adjourned due to the trial judge's unavailability.

The Applicant claimed that their counsel was informed by the court clerk of a new hearing date on November 12, 2024, at 12:00 Noon, and noted it accordingly. However, the hearing actually occurred on November 6, 2024, at 12:00 PM, leading to the dismissal of the application for non-attendance and the entry of default judgment in the main suit.

The Applicant attributed the non-attendance to a failure in the Electronic Case Management Information System (ECCMIS), alleging no timely hearing notification was received until November 6, 2024, at 12:38 PM (via ECCMIS) and 12:40 PM (via email), after the hearing had already taken place. Evidence included annexed email and ECCMIS notifications (Annextures "B1" and "B2").

The Respondent countered that both parties' counsel were informed of the November 6, 2024, date on July 10, 2024, by the court clerk, and that ECCMIS notifications were sent on September 24, 2024, by the Deputy Registrar (evidenced by screenshots in Annexture “SI”).

The Respondent asserted that the post-hearing notification on November 6 was for a mention in the main suit, not the application. The application was brought under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 282), Section 37 of the Judicature Act (Cap 16), Order 36 Rule 11, and Order 52 Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules (SI 71-1, as amended).

ISSUES

Whether the application disclosed sufficient grounds for granting the reliefs sought.
What remedies were available to the Applicant.

SUBMISSIONS

Applicant’s Submissions

Counsel for the Applicant argued that the failure to attend the hearing was due to a system error in ECCMIS, which did not issue timely notifications, causing injustice and prejudice. They emphasized that the application for leave to defend (Misc. Applic. No. 2151 of 2023) had merit, raised triable issues, and that the current application was brought without undue delay. Granting the reliefs was urged in the interest of justice and equity, citing the case of Kasinzi Alias Gatsinzi Vs Hussein Kisiki Nyamayalwo & 2 Ors (Misc. Applic. No. 1747 of 2022) for support on setting aside judgments for good cause.

Respondent’s Submissions

Counsel for the Respondent opposed the application, asserting that notifications were properly issued and received, as evidenced by system screenshots. They argued that the Applicant's counsel was duly informed of the correct date and failed to attend due to negligence, not system failure. The Respondent highlighted that the post-hearing notification was for the main suit's mention, and urged dismissal to prevent frivolous delays in commercial litigation.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

Applicant, Counsel Stuart Kamya – M/s Neptune Advocates
Respondent, Counsel Peter Mulongo – M/s Praxlex Advocates

COURT’S FINDINGS

a) Whether Sufficient Cause Was Shown

The Court found that the Applicant failed to establish sufficient cause under Order 36 Rule 11 CPR, which allows setting aside a decree where service of summons was ineffective or for any other good cause.

The Court rejected the Applicant’s argument that ECCMIS failed to send timely hearing notifications. It confirmed that November 6, 2024, was the date duly fixed for hearing and emphasized that the alleged delayed email notification did not constitute a system error.

“The delayed receipt of the notification by Counsel for the Applicant… cannot be a system error, as Counsel wants this Court to believe.”

The Court accepted the Respondent’s evidence (Annexture “SI”), consisting of system-generated screenshots confirming that ECCMIS notifications were sent on 24 September 2024:

“This Court is fortified in the above finding with the evidence adduced by the Respondent in Annexture ‘SI’, the screenshots, which are system-generated… are the same notifications that went out to Counsel for the Applicant.”

The Court stressed Counsel’s duty of diligence;

“Counsel for the Applicant owed a duty to her client, but failed to exercise that duty with diligence, and wants to shift the blame to the Court, which operates on system-generated documents.”

The Court further cited precedent (Magezi v Ruparelia; Caltex Oil v Kyobe) affirming that sufficient cause must relate to the party’s inability to take a procedural step in time, and that the burden of proof lies on the alleging party under Sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act.

The Applicant failed to discharge this burden.

b) Validity of the Default Judgment

The Court confirmed that the default judgment was properly entered under Order 36 Rule 5 CPR, following the dismissal of Misc. Application No. 2151 of 2023 for non-attendance.

“The default judgment… was only proper as required under Order 36 Rule 5… since Counsel for the Applicant failed to attend Court on the day the application was called for hearing.”

c) Irrelevance of Cited Authorities

The Court noted that the authority relied upon by the Applicant, Kasinzi Alias Gatsinzi v Hussein Kisiki Nyamayalwo, was distinguishable, and therefore offered no assistance to the Applicant’s case:

“The case… is distinguishable; however, the Court shall not delve into the distinction here.”

The Court answered Issue 1—whether sufficient cause had been shown—in the negative.

Remedies

Having found the application meritless, the Court held that the reliefs sought (setting aside the default judgment, decree, and earlier dismissal order; reinstating Misc. Application No. 2151 of 2023) were not available.

The Court reiterated the purpose of the summary procedure regime:

“Order 36 was enacted to facilitate expeditious disposal of cases involving debts and commercial contracts, and to prevent Defendants from presenting frivolous or vexatious defences to unreasonably prolong litigation.”(Citing Post Bank (U) Ltd v Abdu Ssozi).

The Court therefore dismissed the application with costs.

HOLDING

The Applicant failed to establish sufficient cause under Order 36 Rule 11 CPR to justify setting aside the default judgment or the dismissal of Misc. Application No. 2151 of 2023.
The ECCMIS notifications were properly issued, and the Applicant’s assertion of a system error was unsupported. The Court held that Counsel failed to exercise due diligence and could not shift responsibility to the Court.
The default judgment was lawfully entered under Order 36 Rule 5 CPR, following the Applicant’s non-attendance at the hearing.
The authorities cited by the Applicant were inapplicable.
The application was devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
The Court invoked Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to ensure justice and finality, declining to reinstate the dismissed application.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Diligence in Monitoring ECCMIS Is Mandatory
Counsel must proactively monitor ECCMIS dashboards; reliance on verbal communication is insufficient.
Delayed Receipt of Email Notification Is Not Automatically “Sufficient Cause”
Where system-generated notifications exist, Counsel cannot shift responsibility to the Court.
Burden of Proof Lies on the Party Alleging System Failure
Under Sections 101 & 103 of the Evidence Act, allegations of system malfunction require proof, not speculation.
Order 36 Summary Procedure Is Strictly Applied
Courts will uphold default judgments where counsel fails to appear, emphasizing expeditious disposal of commercial disputes.
Internal Office Systems & Diary Management Must Be Robust
This case underscores the importance of internal calendaring systems to track official case dates.
Inherent Powers Will Not Cure Counsel’s Negligence
Section 98 CPA will not be applied to reopen matters arising from avoidable counsel error.
Reinforcing Discipline in Commercial Litigation
The ruling aligns with precedent to deter frivolous attempts to reopen default judgments in summary suits.