The High Court of Uganda’s Commercial Division set aside a default judgment against Tusubira Joseph Waisswa, director of Watujo Agro Produce Limited, citing the lack of WhatsApp “blue ticks” as proof of proper service.
This decision raises critical questions about digital evidence requirements in Ugandan court procedures, especially as electronic methods like WhatsApp become more common for legal notifications.
The case centered on a UGX 88 million debt claim by Seroma Limited, which alleged that Waisswa had not responded to prior summons related to unpaid maize supplies.
Seroma’s legal team argued that Waisswa had been served both in person and via WhatsApp, fulfilling procedural obligations.
However, in a twist, Waisswa claimed he never saw the summons, asserting that his phone was damaged at the time of service.
Justice Patricia Kahigi Asiimwe’s November 6 ruling addressed whether electronic service was sufficient under Ugandan law, specifically focusing on WhatsApp’s “blue ticks” feature.
“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 stated, emphasizing that without blue ticks, the court could not confirm that Waisswa had indeed seen the summons.
While Seroma’s process server claimed to have sent the summons through WhatsApp, attaching screenshots of the message thread, Justice Asiimwe found these inconclusive. “The WhatsApp screenshot does not show any blue ticks,” the judge noted.
This lack of confirmation, she explained, failed to meet the court’s standards for effective service.
Additionally, Waisswa’s affidavit claimed his phone was inoperable at the time due to an accident, a point the court found plausible and unchallenged.
Justice Asiimwe’s ruling highlighted the court’s growing scrutiny of digital communication in legal processes.
“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,” the judge noted, underscoring the need for concrete proof when using technology to replace traditional service methods.
Beyond the service issue, Waisswa’s legal team raised substantial defenses, arguing that the debt in question was not his personal obligation but rather that of Watujo Agro Produce Limited, a legally separate entity. Documents presented suggested the company had partially paid the debt, creating a discrepancy that Justice Asiimwe agreed warranted further examination in court.
With this decision, the High Court granted Waisswa leave to defend himself, allowing him 15 days to file a formal response. Legal experts suggest the ruling may have far-reaching implications for future cases involving electronic service in Uganda, setting new standards for proof of receipt in a digital age.
