The Commercial Division of Uganda’s High Court has set aside a default judgement against Tusubira Joseph Waisswa, the director of Watujo Agro Produce Limited, due to insufficient evidence of service via WhatsApp.
The decision, delivered by Justice Patricia Kahigi Asiimwe on November 6, raises significant questions about the evidentiary requirements for digital service in Ugandan courts as electronic methods become more common for legal notifications.
The case revolved around a UGX 88 million debt claim by Seroma Limited, which alleged that Waisswa had failed to respond to summons concerning unpaid maize supplies.
Seroma’s legal team argued that Waisswa had been served both in person and through WhatsApp, thereby fulfilling procedural requirements.
However, Waisswa contested this claim, stating he never saw the summons, as his phone was damaged at the time of service.
Justice Asiimwe’s ruling specifically addressed whether digital service methods like WhatsApp are acceptable under Ugandan law, with a particular focus on WhatsApp’s “blue tick” feature that signals message receipt and viewing.
“The only feature on the WhatsApp application that can prove that a party received and read a document is if there are two blue ticks on that message,” Justice Asiimwe explained, emphasising that without blue ticks, the court could not confirm that Waisswa had seen the summons.
Seroma’s process server submitted WhatsApp screenshots as evidence of the service attempt, but Justice Asiimwe found these insufficient.
“The WhatsApp screenshot does not show any blue ticks,” she noted, concluding that this lack of confirmation did not meet the court’s standards for effective service.
Additionally, Waisswa presented an affidavit claiming that his phone was damaged at the time of the attempted service, an assertion the court accepted as plausible and unchallenged. This aspect of the ruling reflects the court’s increasing scrutiny of digital communications in legal processes, as well as a cautious approach to replacing traditional methods with technology-based alternatives.
“In this case, it is alleged that the Defendant refused to acknowledge service. There is no evidence to prove that the process server met the Applicant,” Justice Asiimwe commented, underscoring the need for reliable and concrete proof when employing digital methods for legal notifications.
Beyond the procedural issues, Waisswa’s legal team raised substantial defences, arguing that the debt was not a personal obligation but rather that of Watujo Agro Produce Limited, a legally separate entity. Documents submitted by the defence indicated that the company had partially settled the debt, creating a discrepancy Justice Asiimwe agreed required further scrutiny in court.
The High Court’s decision grants Waisswa leave to defend himself, giving him 15 days to file a formal response. Legal experts suggest that this ruling could have wide-reaching implications for future cases involving electronic service, setting a precedent for more stringent standards of proof of receipt in a digital age.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at thestandard256@gmail.com
Or WhatsApp Us on +256750474440
The Standard News.
We come to you.
We are always looking for ways to improve our stories. Let us know what you liked and what we can improve on.
I've got feedback!
