Nicholas Roussos v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani [1993] UGSC 19 (24 November 1993)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f249\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f250\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f252\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f253\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f254\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f255\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f256\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f257\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid8337963 Normal (Web);}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid3478727 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid3478727 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid303201800\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807567 \'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li720\jclisttab\tx720\lin720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807577\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;} \fi-360\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440\lin1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807579\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160\lin2160 } {\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807567\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li2880\jclisttab\tx2880\lin2880 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0 \leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807577\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li3600\jclisttab\tx3600\lin3600 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807579\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li4320\jclisttab\tx4320\lin4320 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \leveltemplateid134807567\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5040\jclisttab\tx5040\lin5040 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807577 \'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5760\jclisttab\tx5760\lin5760 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807579\'02\'08.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;} \fi-180\li6480\jclisttab\tx6480\lin6480 }{\listname ;}\listid412704045}{\list\listtemplateid-1903665748\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid-560854210 \'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li720\jclisttab\tx720\lin720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807577\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;} \fi-360\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440\lin1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807579\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160\lin2160 } {\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807567\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li2880\jclisttab\tx2880\lin2880 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0 \leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807577\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li3600\jclisttab\tx3600\lin3600 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807579\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li4320\jclisttab\tx4320\lin4320 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \leveltemplateid134807567\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5040\jclisttab\tx5040\lin5040 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807577 \'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5760\jclisttab\tx5760\lin5760 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807579\'02\'08.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;} \fi-180\li6480\jclisttab\tx6480\lin6480 }{\listname ;}\listid596060105}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid596060105\listoverridecount0\ls1}{\listoverride\listid412704045\listoverridecount0\ls2}}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}} {\*\rsidtbl \rsid1730864\rsid1974642\rsid2192275\rsid2566460\rsid2704140\rsid3308633\rsid3478727\rsid6901388\rsid8274734\rsid8337963\rsid9048859\rsid9862789\rsid11476736\rsid12278169\rsid13507979\rsid14055228\rsid14830933\rsid16075180\rsid16525304 \rsid16678319}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title - }{\author jchemeri}{\operator skivumbi}{\creatim\yr2009\mo12\dy2\hr14\min35}{\revtim\yr2009\mo12\dy2\hr14\min35}{\version2}{\edmins1}{\nofpages11}{\nofwords3197}{\nofchars18225} {\*\company JSI}{\nofcharsws21380}{\vern24689}}\paperw11906\paperh16838 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1 \dgvshow1\jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot8337963\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid3478727 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid3478727 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid3478727 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid3478727 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\headery708\footery708\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid2704140\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8274734 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid3478727 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid16075180 1}}}{\cs17\insrsid3478727 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid3478727 {\insrsid3478727 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9862789 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid9862789 AT MENGO}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275\charrsid9862789 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid9862789 (CORAM: MANYINDO, D. C. J., ODOKI, J. S. C., &ODER, J. S. C.)}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9862789 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid9862789 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9 OF}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275\charrsid9862789 1993 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 BETWEEN}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid16678319 NICHOLAS ROUSSOS : : : : : :}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275\charrsid16678319 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid16678319 APPELLANT \line }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275\charrsid16678319 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid16678319 AND \line GULAMHUSSEIN HABIB VIRAN}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275\charrsid16678319 I \line N}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 AZMUDIN HABIB VIRANI ::::::::}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275\charrsid16678319 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid16678319 RESPONDENTS}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275 \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9862789 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275 (Appeal from the Order of the }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Hig}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275 h Court at Kampala (Byamugisha J) dated 25}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid2192275\charrsid2192275 th}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 November 1992 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275 )}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275\charrsid16678319 IN \line }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1730864\charrsid16678319 }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2192275\charrsid16678319 CIVIL SUIT NO.}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1730864\charrsid16678319 360}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid16678319 OF 1982)}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1730864 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid16678319 \line }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid16678319 JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1730864\charrsid16678319 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 This is an appeal against the Order of the High Court in Kampala overruling a preliminary objection by the appellant that the application to set aside the }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 ex parte }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Judgement against the respondents which was brought under 0.9 r.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules was made under a wrong rule and was therefore incompetent and should be struck out unless amended. The respondents opposed the objection. The trial Judge held t hat the application was properly made. Hence this appeal. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1730864 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant \rquote s mother sued the respondents for an order directing the Registrar of Titles to cancel the names of the respondents from the Leaseholder Register V olume 240 Folio 3 and the house at Plot No. 30 Windsor Crescent, Kampala, and substitute the name of the appellant\rquote s mother as the registered proprietor of the said land, on the ground that the said title was obtaine}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1730864 d improperly and unlawfully. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11476736 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 As the respondents could not be served with summons because they were out of the country, the appellant obtained leave to serve the process through advertisement in the local newspapers. The respondents did not respond to the process and the suit was set down fo r hearing }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 ex parte. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Judgement was entered in favour of the appellant\rquote s mother against the respondents on 18th August, 1982.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 When the respondents returned to Uganda in July, 1992 to repossess their property, they became aware of the }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 ex parte }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Judgement. They }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 made an application under 0.9 r}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 .9 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside the Judgement on the grounds that: }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (1)\tab}}\pard \s15\qj \fi-360\li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \jclisttab\tx720\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 They were not served with summons to appear and defend the suit}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 . \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (2)\tab}}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 They were expelled from Uganda in 1972 and went to Britain where they stayed until early 1992}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 . \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (3)\tab}}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 The summons were wrongly advertised in the local press when the circumstances showed that the defendants had been expelled from Uganda}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 . \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (4)\tab} }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 They had a good defence against the appellant\rquote s claim because he sold them the suit property and executed a transfer in their favour, which was registered in 1969.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li360\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin360\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \line On the hearing day a preliminary objection was raised that the application was made under a wrong rule. The appellant contended that it should have be}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 en made under 0.9 r.24 and not }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 0.9.r.9 Of the Civil Procedure Rules, because evidence had been heard. The respondents maintained that 0.9 r.9 was the one applicable because the hearing had taken place under 0.9 r.8A. The trial Judge overruled the objection on the grounds that he pr inciples involved in applications under either rule were the same and that there was no specific legislation governing the matter. In coming to this conclusion she said,}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'93However there are numerous authorities which have dealt with applications for setting aside ex parte judgements or decrees. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319\charrsid3478727 Some}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 of those authorities are: \line }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Kimani }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319\charrsid3478727 vs.}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 McConnell }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1966) E. A. 547; }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Mbogo }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319\charrsid3478727 vs.}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Shah }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1968) E. A. 93; }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Kafero }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319\charrsid3478727 vs.}{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Standard Bank }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 (1970) E. A. 429; Patel }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 vs.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid16678319 E. A Cargo}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 .}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Handling Services (1974) E. A. 75. In all thee authorities and many other which I have come across, the applications were brought under either rule 9 or 24 or under both rules. the legal principles involved in applications of this nature appear to be the s ame. I am not prepared therefore at this stage to determine which applications should be brought under which rule especially in the absence of specific legislation or decided cases on the subject. The distinction which counsel for the plaintiff is trying to draw in my view to me (sic) to be an academic exercise. It is my finding that the application is properly before court and the preliminary objection is overruled.\'94}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 The appellant has filed three grounds of appeal. They are as follows: }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 1.\tab}}\pard \s15\qj \fi-360\li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \jclisttab\tx720\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls2\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 The learned Jud ge erred in law in holding that there was no specific legislation on the rules under which different applications to set aside ex parte judgements should be brought.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 2.\tab} }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 The learned Judge erred in law in holding that the legal principles involved in applications made under Rules 9 and 24 of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules were the same.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 3.\tab} }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 The learned Judge erred in law in holding that the defendant\rquote s application for an order to set aside the ex parte judgement and decree/order in this suit was properly brought under 0.9 r.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li360\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin360\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \line Mr. Mulenga learned Counsel for the appellant submitted on the first ground of appeal that there was specific legislation governing applications to set aside ex }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 parte}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Judgements. He cited Rules }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 9 and 24 of order 9 of the Civil}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Procedure Rules as relevant to such applications. He conte}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 nded that in the present case, j}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 udgement was not obtained under 0.9}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 no}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 r under 0.46 but was obtained under 0.18 r.l of }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 the Civil Procedu}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 re Rules.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9048859 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Mr. Kateera learned Counsel for the respondents conceded that there was specific legislation }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 on the subject, which in his }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 view was 0.9 r.9. He submitted however, that 0.9 r.24 }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid12278169 was}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 inapplicable because it was limited to the two situations mentioned in the rule, and 0.18 r,1 was irrelevant because it dealt with pronouncement of judgement.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 We agree with both Council that there are specific provisions in our law governing applications to set aside ex parte judgements. These provisions are contained in Rule 9and 24 of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is true that in the cases referred to by the learned Judge, applications had been brought either under r.9 of r.24 or both, but this proves the presence of specific legislation on the matter rather than it absence. The failure t o decide which rule applies to a particular matter doses not mean that there is a lacuna in the law. The first ground of appeal must succeed.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Arguing the}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 second ground of appeal learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the legal principles involved in application under r.9 and r.24 are not the same because under r.9 the discretion of the court was unlimited whereas under r.24 the discretion was limited to sufficient cause. Rule of 9 Order 9 provides,}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'93Where judgement has been passed pursuant to any of the preceding rules of this Order or where judgement has been entered by the Registrar in cases under Order XLVI, it shall be lawful for the court to set aside or vary such judgement upon such terms as may be just.\'94}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 On the other hand rule 24 states: }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'93In any case in which a decree is passed ex }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 parte }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 against the defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set aside; and if he satisfies the court that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause for not appearing When the suit was called for hearing, the court shall make an order}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 setting aside the Decree as }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 against him upon such terms as to cost, payment into court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with suit.\'94 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li360\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin360\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 There is a line of authorities which establish that the principles applicable to r.9 and 24 of 0.9 are different, and that the discretion under r.9 is wide whereas under r.24 it is }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169\charrsid3478727 limited} {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 to showing sufficient case. In }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Patel v. E. A. Cargo Handling Services }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1974) E. A. 75, the Court to Appeal for East Africa held that 09A r.10 of Kenya Civil Procedure Rules which is equivalent to our 0.9 r.9 gave the court unlimited or unrestricted discretion. Duffus P. said, \line \'93There are no limits or restri ctions on the Judge\rquote s discretion except that if he does vary the judgement he does so on such terms as may be just.\'94 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li360\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin360\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \line In }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Sebei District Administration v. Gashali }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1968) EA 300, Sheridan J., held that 0.9 r.9,}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'93gives the court a wide discretion and is to be contrasted with 0.9 r.24 where an applicant has to show sufficient cause for not appearing.\'94}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 This distinction was also made by the High Court of Kenya in }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Kimani v. McConnell }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1966) E. A. 547 where Harris J., said, at p. 555,}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12278169 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'93The reference to the defe ndant having been prevented from taking the proper steps appears to come from r.24 but that rule makes it mandatory upon the court in a proper case to set aside the ex parte decree whereas r.10 (equivalent to r.9) makes no reference to the defendant havin g been so prevented, and confers upon the court what would appear to be absolute discretion to be exercised judicially in the light of the facts, circumstances and mer}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 its of the particular case.\'94 \line } {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \line Harris J. also formulated the test upon which the exercise of discretion under r.l0 was to be based. It was,}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'93Whether in light of all the facts and circumstan}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 ces both prior and subsequent }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 d of the respective merits of the parties, it would be just and reasonable to set aside or vary the judgement if necess}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 ary upon terms to be imposed .\'94 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 This test was approved by the Court of Appeal for East Africa in }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Mbogo v. Shah }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1968) EA, 93, and in }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Patel v. E. A. Cargo }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Handling Services (1974) E. A. where Duffus P. at page 76 said, }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'93 I also agree with this broad statement of principle to be followed. The main concern of the court is to do justice to the parties and the court will not impose conditions on itself to fetter the wide discretion given to it by the rules.\'94}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 In a recent case, the Kenya Court of Appeal had occasion to explain the distinction between r.10 and r.24 of 0.9 of their Civil Procedure rules before they were amended. In }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Wameru v. Ndiga }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1982 \emdash 88) 1 K. A. R. 210, at page 214, Hancox J. A., said, }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'93But the main distinction between those two former rules was that r.24 additionally deferred to a different situation; r.10 applied only where judgement had been passed pursuant to any of the preceding rules of the order which provided }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 inter alia }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 for the setting down of the suit ex parte (that is to say without notice to the defendant - See Bennet Ag. CJ in }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Zirabamuzaale v. Correct }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1962) E. A. at 695) when the defendant had failed to enter appearance or had failed to file a defence. Rule 24 however applied to the si tuation where the defendant not having entered an appearance or having entered an appearance could nevertheless show that the summons had not been duly served or whether or not he had entered an appearance and failed to attend when the suit was called for hearing. The tenor of the preceding rr.17 to 23 showed th}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 at they all referred to the non-}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 appearance, }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 that is to say the absence of }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 the parties, with the emphasis on the defendant and r.24 itself specifically said that he might apply to set aside \line \lquote if he s atisfies the court that the summons was not duly served (meaning the summons to enter appearance) or that he was prevented by any sufficient case from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.\'94}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388

\par }\pard \s15\ql \li360\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin360\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 The Judge concluded, \line \'93Under that rule therefore the defendant could apply to set the judgem}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 ent aside only on two grounds, \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'931. That the summ}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 ons had not been duly served, \par 2 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 That he was prevented by sufficient cause from physically appearing when the case came on for hearing.\'94}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Hancox J. A. also pointed out that the confusion had arisen to the indiscriminate use in Rule 24 of the word appearing when in fact physical appearance was meant. We respectfully agree with the above observations.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 As regards the principles upon which the discretion under r.24 may be ex ercised, the courts have attempted to lay down some of the grounds or circumstances which may amount to sufficient cause. A mistake by an advocate though negligent may be accepted as a sufficient cause. See: }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Shabin Din v. Ram Parkash Anand }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1955) 22 EACA 4 8. Ignorance of procedure by an unrepresented defendant may amount to sufficient cause }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Zirabamuzaale v. Correct }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1962) E. A. 694. Illness by a party may also constitute sufficient cause: }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Patel v. Star Mineral Water and Ice Factory }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1961) E. A. 454. But failure to instruct an advocate is not sufficient cause: See }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Mitha v. Ladak }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 (1960) E. A. 1054. It was also held in this case tha}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 t it is not open for the court to consider the merits of the case when considering an application to set aside an ex parte judgement u nder this rule.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 From the foregoing authorities it seems to us and we hold that the legal principles applicable to r.9 and r.24 of 0.9 are clearly different and the learned}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388 Judge erred in holding that }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 they were the same. We are aware that some decisions ha ve tended to regard the two rules as if they were interchangeable or applicable to the same situations, as in }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Kafero v. Standard }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (supra), or as if rule 24 was }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6901388\charrsid3478727 superfluous}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 as said in }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 FortHall Bakery Supply Co.}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 v F. M }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 Wangoe}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1958) EA 118. To be on the safe side some advocates have in case of doubt sought to}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 bring applications to set aside}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid2566460 ex}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 parte judgements under both rules.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 The wording of the two rules seems to be unsatisfactory and needs review. In Kenya, the two rules have been amended with the result tha t the discretion under either rule is unlimited, the requirement for showing sufficient cause having been dropped under r.24. The new provisions in Kenya are set out and explained by the Kenya Court of Appeal in }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Pithon W. Mama v, Mugiria }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1982 \emdash 88) 1 K. A. R. 171 and }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Waweru v. Ndinga }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1982 \emdash 88) 1 K. A. R. 210 where Hancox J. A. said at p.215:}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'93Rule 3 of Ord. .9B replaced r.17 of the former Ord.9 and substitutes \lquote attends\rquote for }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \lquote appears\rquote }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 . Moreover the requirement that a person who does not attend shall show sufficient cause has disappeared and the court is now given the same unfettered discretion by r.8 of Ord.9B to set aside as it is by r.10 of Ord.9A for failure to enter appearance or file a defence. \'94 \line There is merit in these reforms which we could consider adopting in order to streamline the rules. But until our rules are changed they should continue to apply to different situations and on different principles. We therefore uphold the second ground of appeal.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 It was submitted for the appellant on the third ground of appeal that the trial Judge erred in holding that the application to set aside the ex parte judgement was properly brought under 0.9 r.9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that t he ex parte judgement in this case was not made under 0.9 or 0.46 because it was neither for liquidated sum which could be entered under r.4 no pecuniary damages whic}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 h could be entered under r.6 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 nor }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid2566460 was}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 it entered by the Registrar under 0.46. It was his su bmission that Judgement in this case was made under 0.18 r.1 after a hearing. He submitted further that none of the authorities relied on by the learned Judge decide the point at issue.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Learned Counsel for the respondents conceded that judgement in this c ase could not be entered under r.4 or r.6. He submitted, however, that 0.18 r.1 was irrelevant because it was about pronouncing judgement. He also submitted that 0.9 r.24 does not apply because it was limited to two situations. The first is where the defe n dant has been served with summons and this did not apply because the respondents were served by substituted service. The second is where the defendant is prevented by sufficient cause for not attending at the hearing, and this did not apply because the re spondents were not aware of the case. It was his contention that 0.9 r.9 was applicable because the case was heard ex parte under r.8A(2) and judgement obtained. He argued that the authorities cited by the learned Judge supported her decision.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 The main issue is therefore whether the ex parte judgement was obtained under r.8A(2) This rule provides,}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'93Where the time allowed for filing a defence or, in a suit in which there is more than one defendant, the time allowed for filing the last of the defences has expired and the defendant or defendants, as the case may be, has or have failed to file his or their defences, the plaintiff may set down the suit for hearing }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 ex parte\'94 }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 The purpose of this provision, as the marginal note indicates, is to provide a procedure for setting down the hearing of the suit }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 ex parte }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 when the time allowed for filing the defence has expired. There is no mention of passing judgement or any other outcome of the hearing. This contrasts sharply with the wording of r.4 which expressly gives the court power \'93 to pass judgement for any sum not exceeding the sum claimed in the plaint with interest}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \'85\'85.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460\charrsid3478727 \'93Or}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 of r.6 whe}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 re the Court \'93may proceed to }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 pass judgement for the amount found to be due in the course of such assessment.\'94 Judgement may also be passed under r.5 and r.7 where several defendants are involved.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 It seems to us that the preceding rules referred to in r.9 pursuant to whic}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 h judgement may be entered are }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 r 4, 5, 6, 7, only. Rules 8 and 8A are not included because no judgement is passed by the court under these rules. It was not claimed that judgement has been entered by the Registrar under 0.46. He therefore held that the application to set aside the ex parte Judgement in this case could not be brought under 0.9 r.9.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \line It was submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that the ex parte judgement was passed under 0.18 r.1 which provides,}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'93In a suit where a hearing is necessary the Court after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgement in open Court, either at once or on some fut ure day, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their advocates.\'94}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Although on the face of it, the rule may be taken to deal with delivery of judgement, when 0.18 is read as a whole, it is clear that the court is given power to pass judgement under r.1 and the subsequent rules provide for matters relating to t}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 he form and content of judgments}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 and decrees. Since it is common ground that there was a hearing before the ex parte judgement was passed, we are of the view that judgement in this case was passed under 0.18 r.1.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 It was contended for the appellant that since 0.9 r.9 did not apply, the proper rule under which the respondent should have made the application to set as}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 ide the ex parte judgement was }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 r.24. Learned Counsel for the respondents argued that r.24 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460\charrsid3478727 could}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 not apply to this case.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Considering the grounds upon which the appl}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 ication to set aside the judgem}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 ent were based which a}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 re set out at the beginning }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 of this judgement, }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid2566460 it appears }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 that the respondents had r.24 in mind when framing their application.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Their grounds included the claim that they were not served with the summons to appear and defend the suit, because the summons were advertised in the local press when circumstances showed that they were abroad, and secondly, that they were ou t of the country because they had been expelled from Uganda in 1972. These claims echo the requirement of sufficient cause which must be shown under r.24 before the court can exercise its discretion to set aside an ex parte judgement.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2566460 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 There is authority f or holding that where the plaintiff sets down the suit for hearing ex parte under r.8 or r.8A, and obtains judgement, the proper rule under which to bring an application for setting aside the ex parte judgement is r.24: See }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Patel V. Star Mineral Water and Ice Factory }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (supra) }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Zirabamuzaale v. Correct }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (supra) }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Otanga v. Nabunjo }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (1965) EA 384 and }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Kafero v. Standard Bank }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (supra).}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 In }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Kafero v. Standard Bank }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (supra) where the application had been made under rr.9 and 24, and Section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act, Youds J held that the more appropriate rule to consider was r.24. He criticised the trial Magistrate for failing to \'93 apply his mind to what r.24 states and whether good cause had been shown by the appellant for no}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 n-}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 appearance at the hearing of the suit.\'94 He held that the cau}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 se of the first defendant\rquote s non-}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 appearance when the suit was called for hearing was his failure to give proper instructions for his defence to his advoca}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 tes, and this did no constitute}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 sufficient cause.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 In }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Otanga v. Nabu}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 njo}{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 (s upra) the defendant who was acting in person entered appearance but did not take any further steps in the matter under the mistaken belief that the procedure in the High Court was the same as in Buganda courts and that he would be summoned by court to att end the hearing. As no defence was filed, the suit was set down for hearing ex parte pursuant to 0.9 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228\charrsid3478727 r.8A (}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 2). No notice to the defendant was given and judgement}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 was entered in his absence. Subsequently the defendant applied under 0.9 rr.9 and 24 and s.101 of the Civil Procedure Act, to set aside the judgement. Considering the application under r.24, Russell J held,}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \'93I find that owing to ignorance of the Rules of Procedure of the High Court, the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause for not appearing when the suit was called on for hearing\'94 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 Accordingly, we find merit in the third ground of appeal. We hold that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that the application to set aside the ex parte judgement was properly brought under 0.9 r.9}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 .

\par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 In the resu lt, we allow this appeal, set aside the ruling and order for costs of the trial Judge and substitute an order upholding the objection with costs to the appellant here and in the lower court.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 DATED AT MENGO THIS 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1993}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 . \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9862789 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 S. T. MANYINDO \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9862789 }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE}{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 \par }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 B. J. ODOKI \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9862789 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9862789 A. H. O. ODER \par }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14055228 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid3478727 }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8337963\charrsid9862789 \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9862789 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14830933\charrsid3478727 \par }}