By NOMAD Advocates
On April 23, 2026, the High Court of Uganda (Commercial Division) delivered a significant ruling in the case of Blue Pearls Company Limited v Oryx Energies Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 540 of 2026, arising from Civil Suit No. 1411 of 2024). The case revolved around an application by Blue Pearls Company Limited (the Applicant) to set aside an interlocutory judgment that had been entered against it and to obtain leave to file a defence out of time.
The dispute began when Oryx Energies Uganda Limited (the Respondent) sued Blue Pearls Company Limited for the recovery of UGX 655,129,147, along with damages, interest, and costs. The original suit (Civil Suit No. 642 of 2020) abated due to procedural lapses by the Respondent. However, the Respondent later filed a fresh suit (Civil Suit No. 1411 of 2024) for the same claim.
The Applicant argued that it was not aware of the new suit, as it had not seen the summons published in the Monitor Newspaper and only learned of the proceedings in March 2026 through its lawyers. The Respondent, on the other hand, maintained that proper service had been effected, both through the Applicant’s lawyer and by substituted service (newspaper publication), and that the Applicant had been given ample opportunity to defend itself.
The Court identified two main issues:
- Whether there was sufficient cause to set aside the interlocutory judgment.
- What remedies were available to the parties.
Sufficient Cause for Setting Aside Judgment
The Court emphasized that justice requires disputes to be decided on their merits and that procedural errors should not prevent a party from pursuing its rights. Citing Ugandan and regional case law, the Court noted that “sufficient cause” means a party must not have acted negligently or in bad faith, and each case must be judged on its own facts.
In this case, although the Court found that service of summons was lawfully done (first on the Applicant’s lawyer, then by newspaper publication), it was not effective because the Applicant did not actually become aware of the suit in time to defend itself. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s guidance that effective service must result in the defendant being made aware of the suit so they can respond.
Having found sufficient cause, the Court set aside the interlocutory judgment and granted Blue Pearls Company Limited leave to file its defence within 15 days. The Respondent was also given 15 days to reply once served. Costs of the application were ordered to be in the cause (to be determined at the conclusion of the main suit).
The court relied on the Supreme Court case of Geoffrey Gatete and Another Vs William Kyobe, SCCA No.7 of 2005, to explain what amounts to effective service, when it stated that: “The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines the word “effective” to mean “having the desired effect; producing the intended result”. In that context, effective service of summons means service of summons that produces the desired or intended result… There can be no doubt that the desired and intended result of serving summons on the Defendant in a civil suit is to make the Defendant aware of the suit brought against him so that he has the opportunity 5 to respond to it by either defending the suit or admitting liability and submitting to judgment.”
This decision underscores the Ugandan judiciary’s commitment to substantive justice over procedural technicalities. It highlights the importance of ensuring that defendants are genuinely made aware of legal proceedings against them, not just that formal service requirements are met. The ruling also serves as a reminder to litigants and their counsel to ensure that service of court documents is both lawful and effective.
It, however, leaves a lingering question about the effectiveness of substituted service, since, for a long time, the belief has been that the party being served actually received notice of service, whereas in most cases, they did not. This is because substituted service is primarily limited to widely circulated newspapers, yet most Ugandans do not access or read newspapers daily to become aware of the service of summons. Even for the newspaper readers, it is hard to pinpoint the summons normally printed in small fonts. Furthermore, with the advancements in information technology, the courts must rethink other modes of effecting substituted service, rather than newspapers, so that the intended purpose is ultimately achieved.
This is so in line with the court’s basis to set aside the interlocutory judgment by holding that: “…in appropriate circumstances, service may be lawfully made on the Defendant’s agent. If the agent omits to make the Defendant aware of the summons, the intended result will not be achieved. Similarly, the Court may order substituted service by way of publishing the summons in the press. While the publication will constitute lawful service, it will not produce the desired result if it does not come to the Defendant’s notice… Although service on the agent or the substituted service would be ‘deemed good service’ on the Defendant…if it is shown that the service did not lead to the Defendant becoming aware of the summons, the service is ‘not effective’…”
It is therefore not enough for the court to proceed ex parte or grant default judgment simply because substituted service was effected. The Applicant must satisfy the court that the service had the effect of making the adverse party aware of the summons. We believe that this is good law, albeit the practical challenges of proving whether the other party actually saw the notice.
Conclusion
The High Court’s ruling in Blue Pearls Company Limited v Oryx Energies Uganda Limited reaffirms the principle that the right to a fair hearing is paramount. Even when procedural steps have been followed, courts will assess the effectiveness of those steps to ensure that justice is done.
For more legal updates, comments and analysis, visit our website at www.nadvocates.com or info@nadvocates.com