The High Court of Uganda at Kabale Sets Aside an Ex parte Judgment on the Grounds of Illness, emphasising that Courts Exercise Wide Discretion in ensuring a Fair Hearing.

Waboga David
Sep 6
2 min read

Brief Background

The applicants sought to set aside an ex-parte judgment entered against them after they failed to attend court on 15 April 2025. They argued that their absence was due to the first applicant’s illness (Mpox), which also required the second applicant (his wife) to remain in isolation as caregiver. Medical records and a letter requesting adjournment were submitted in support.

The respondent opposed the application, contending that the applicants were habitual absentees, the medical documents were uncertified, and that the application was a delay tactic to frustrate recovery of an outstanding loan of UGX 49,750,000/=.

Issue

Whether the applicants had shown sufficient cause to justify setting aside the ex-parte judgment under Order 9 Rules 12 and 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Court’s Analysis

The Court reiterated that under Order 9 Rules 12 and 27, an ex-parte judgment may be set aside where sufficient cause is demonstrated.

Guided by Captain Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (SCCA No. 14 of 2001), illness is recognised as a ground that may amount to sufficient cause.

While the respondent raised doubts about the medical evidence, the Court held that testing the veracity of the illness required further interrogation at trial and could not be conclusively determined at this stage.

Citing Kiyimba Eddie Kalema Lwembaawo v Dooba Enterprises (MA No. 89 of 2012) and Dhillon v Dhillon [2006] 1 EA, the Court emphasised that its discretion in setting aside ex-parte judgments must serve the ends of justice and ensure fair hearing.

Decision

The Court allowed the application and set aside the ex-parte judgment subject to conditions:

Applicants to deposit UGX 24,875,000/= (half of the claim) in court within 30 days.
Applicants to deposit UGX 5,000,000/= as security for costs within 30 days.
The main suit to resume immediately upon deposit.
Failure to comply would allow the suit to proceed ex-parte.
Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Key Takeaways

Illness is sufficient cause under Order 9 for setting aside ex-parte judgments, but supporting evidence will be scrutinised.
Courts exercise wide discretion in balancing fairness with avoidance of abuse of process.
Conditional orders (e.g., deposits, security for costs) are a judicial safeguard to protect respondents where ex-parte judgments are set aside.
The ruling reinforces the constitutional right to a fair hearing while ensuring claimants are not prejudiced by undue delay.

Read the full case