An application by Hill Water Uganda seeking to overturn a default judgment in a debt dispute with General Moulding Uganda has been dismissed, bringing to an end a lengthy legal battle over unpaid goods worth Shs 45.8 million.
Justice Dr. Ginamia Melody Ngwatu of the Commercial Court dismissed Hill Water’s application with costs, saying the company had failed to follow mandatory court procedures.
Hill Water produces and distributes packaged mineral drinking water across the country, while General Moulding manufactures plastic packaging materials and household plastic products.
The dispute started in 2022 when General Moulding sued Hill Water in Nakawa Chief Magistrate’s Court seeking recovery of Shs 45,855,500 for goods allegedly supplied to the company.
According to court records, the case was filed as Civil Suit No. 757 of 2022. However, Hill Water later argued that some documents carried a different suit number, namely Civil Suit No. 758 of 2022, which allegedly caused confusion and led to its defence being misplaced.
The director of Hill Water, Peter Katende, told the court that the mix-up in suit numbers prevented the company from properly defending itself.
The company said it had filed a written statement of defence twice, using the wrong suit number because the summons served by the respondent’s lawyers allegedly bore the incorrect number.
Hill Water further argued that a default judgment was later entered against it after the defence documents could not be traced.
The company then filed another case seeking to set aside the default judgment, but the application was dismissed.
Unsatisfied with that decision, Hill Water moved to the Commercial Court, seeking revision of the Nakawa Chief Magistrate’s ruling and a retrial before another court.
The company raised several complaints against the earlier proceedings.
First, Hill Water argued that the Nakawa Chief Magistrate’s Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter because its offices are located in Mukono, while General Moulding’s factory is situated in Seeta.
Second, it claimed the default judgment was entered irregularly because the attached documents did not disclose a proper cause of action against it.
Third, Hill Water said the trial magistrate wrongly entered judgment without conducting formal proof proceedings.
It also accused General Moulding’s lawyers of confusing the issue by serving documents bearing the wrong case number.
“The written statement of defence was filed, but with a wrong suit number, and the mistake was from the respondent’s advocates who served documents with a wrong suit number,” Hill Water argued.
The company insisted that it had “substantial grounds” that warranted a full trial.
General Moulding, through its director Adinarayana Balcha, accused Hill Water of making false claims and abusing the court process.
General Moulding denied ever serving documents bearing the wrong suit number and insisted that all proper court documents correctly showed Civil Suit No. 757 of 2022.
It further alleged that the summons attached by Hill Water was forged.
In its affidavit, General Moulding said: “The summons annexed to the application is not the valid summons issued by the court and served on the applicant in the main suit but a forgery.”
General Moulding also rejected Hill Water’s claim that the Nakawa court lacked jurisdiction.
It argued that the contract between the parties had been made at its offices on 1st Street Industrial Area in Kampala, giving the Nakawa court authority to hear the dispute.
General Moulding further maintained that Hill Water had failed to file its defence within the time allowed by the court.
According to the respondent, the magistrate had ordered Hill Water on October 31, 2023, to file its defence within 15 days, but the company failed to do so.
Court faults NMS for firing their Chief Pharmacist after unfairly altering his job title
Justice Ngwatu eventually focused on two preliminary objections raised by General Moulding.
The first objection concerned the delayed service of the revision application.
She noted that the application had been endorsed by the registrar on October 21, 2024, and fixed for hearing on December 12, 2024. However, Hill Water only properly served the respondent in September 2025, nearly a year later.
Justice Ngwatu said there was no proof that General Moulding had been served earlier through WhatsApp as alleged by Hill Water.
Justice Ngwatu stressed that court rules on service are mandatory and cannot be ignored.
“Litigation should be conducted diligently, and the conduct of filing matters and leaving them unprosecuted without satisfactory explanation for long periods of time and later seeking the court’s indulgence after the time has expired is a blatant abuse of court process,” she said.
The second objection related to Hill Water’s failure to attach a certified copy of the order it wanted revised.
Justice Ngwatu agreed with General Moulding that the omission was fatal.
She said the company merely attached a letter expressing dissatisfaction instead of the specific order being challenged.
She ruled that this made it difficult for the court to determine exactly which decision Hill Water wanted revised.
Justice Ngwatu said that Hill Water was attempting to raise issues that should have been pursued through an appeal rather than a revision application.
She stated that revision powers are limited to checking whether proper legal procedures were followed by the lower court.
In the end, Justice Ngwatu dismissed the application entirely and ordered Hill Water to pay costs to General Moulding.
