Kaggwa v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 2028 of 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 19 (23 January 2025)

# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION) MISCELLENEAOUS APPLICATION NO.2028 OF 2024 (ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 390 OF 2024) DR. APOLLO KAGGWA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT VERSUS**

**ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT**

## **BEFORE; HON. LADY JUSTICE NALUZZE AISHA BATALA RULING**

### **Introduction;**

- 1. This was an application by way of Summons in Chamber brought under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Rule 6 of the Government proceedings (civil procedure rules), for orders that: - i) The applicant be granted leave to obtain a judgement in default of filing a defence against the Attorney general. - ii) The costs of the application be provided for.

### *Applicant's evidence;*

2. The application is supported by an affidavit deponed by the applicant which briefly states as follows;

- i) That I filed HCCS No. 390 of 2024 against the respondent and summons to file a defence were served onto the respondent. - ii) That the respondent has since not filed or ignored to file his written statement of defence within the time limits as required by law. - iii) That the respondent is not interested in the matter and it is within the interests of justice that the application be granted.

#### *Representation;*

3. The applicant was represented by Counsel Tumusime Ronald of M/S Cumberland Advocates and the respondent was represented by Counsel Hillary Nathan Ebira State Attorney from AGs Chambers. Only the applicant filed submissions which I have considered in the determination of this application.

## *Issues for determination;*

*Whether leave should be granted to the applicant to obtain a default judgement against the respondent?*

## *Resolution and determination of the issues;*

- 4. The government proceedings (civil procedure) rules under rule 6 is to the effect that a judgement shall not be entered and no order shall be made against the government in default of appearance or pleadings under any provisions of the principle rules without leave of court. - 5. Drawing reference to the decision of **Agasa Maingi vs Attorney General Case No. 95 of 2002** where Justice Katutsi held that in situations where there is proof of service against the Attorney General and the said proof is returned to court showing a received stamp by the chambers of the Attorney General then it can be inferred that the applicant has complied with rule 6 of the government proceedings (civil procedure rules). - 6. In the instant case the applicant prays for leave to obtain a default judgement against the respondent for failure to file a written statement of defence upon being served with the plaint and summons to file a defence. - 7. The applicant attached proof of service of the plaint and summons to file a defence and the said documents were stamped on the 17th of May 2024 by the respondent to indicate that indeed service was affected and a copy of the proof of service was returned to court.

- 8. The instant application was filed on the 29th of July 2024 that is more than two months ever since the respondent was served with summons to file a defence but he has never complied with the same. - 9. This court is of the finding that the applicant has made a case to grant him leave to obtain a default judgement against the respondent. - 10. Therefore, the instant application succeeds with the following orders; - i) That the applicant is granted leave to obtain a default judgement against the respondent vide Civil Suit No.390 of 2024 - ii) No orders as to costs.

**I SO ORDER**.

#### **NALUZZE AISHA BATALA**

#### **Ag. JUDGE**

#### **23rd/01/2025.**


## **Delivered Electronically via ECCMIS on the 23rd of January,**