Ayub Sulaiman v Salim Kabambalo [1998] UGSC 5

Supreme Court · 1998 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from a High Court ruling dismissing an application to review an order that had dismissed the suit for want of prosecution

Decision

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent; the dismissal of the underlying suit stands

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Although the trial court had dismissed the suit under Order 15 r.5 (which did not apply), the dismissal occasioned no injustice because the court possessed inherent jurisdiction under s.101 of the Civil Procedure Act to dismiss for want of prosecution where no specific rule applied. The appellant's application to review under Order 42 r.2 was misconceived: the proper remedies were to set aside the dismissal under Order 9 r.20 (on showing sufficient cause for non-appearance) or to appeal. The appellant was guilty of inordinate, unexplained delay (laches), and Article 126(2) of the Constitution is not a license for non-compliance with procedure.

Facts

In 1986 the appellant sued the respondent for recovery of land at Kisugu, Kampala (Kyadondo Block 244 plot 2944). The suit was first listed for hearing on 19 December 1990 but was adjourned repeatedly at the instance of the appellant, who was frequently abroad in Hong Kong. On 30 November 1993, when the appellant's counsel again sought an adjournment on the ground of the appellant's absence, the trial Judge (Ongom J) refused and dismissed the suit for want of prosecution under Order 15 r.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with costs to the respondent. The appellant applied to review that dismissal; Ouma J heard and dismissed the application on 27 February 1995. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, where he ultimately appeared in person and filed written submissions after his counsel declined the brief.

Issues

Whether the trial Judge erred in law or fact in dismissing the appellant's application to review the ruling that had dismissed his suit for want of prosecution.
Whether the court could invoke its inherent jurisdiction under s.101 of the Civil Procedure Act to dismiss a suit where none of the specific provisions of Order 15 applied.
Whether an application for review under Order 42 was the proper remedy against the dismissal of the suit.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Inherent Jurisdiction under s.101 Civil Procedure Act

Where none of the specific provisions for dismissing a suit for want of prosecution applies, the court retains inherent jurisdiction under s.101 of the Civil Procedure Act to dismiss the suit to prevent abuse of its process or injustice; the existence of a specific procedural remedy does not restrict or exclude that inherent jurisdiction.

Civil Procedure — Review — Order 42 — Wrong Procedural Remedy

An application to review an order of dismissal is misconceived where there is nothing to review and the proper remedy is to apply under Order 9 r.20 to set aside the dismissal on showing sufficient cause for non-appearance, or to appeal.

Civil Procedure — Reliance on Wrong Provision — No Miscarriage of Justice

A trial court's reliance on the wrong procedural provision does not vitiate its order where the dismissal rests on valid grounds and no injustice or miscarriage of justice results.

Civil Procedure — Laches — Article 126(2) of the Constitution

Article 126(2) of the Constitution is not a license for non-compliance with rules of procedure; a litigant guilty of inordinate and unexplained delay (laches) cannot rely on it to restore a suit dismissed for want of prosecution.

Legislation cited (8)

Civil Procedure Act s.101
Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 r.5
Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 r.16
Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 r.19
Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 r.20
Civil Procedure Rules Order 42 r.1
Civil Procedure Rules Order 42 r.2
Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)

Cases cited (8)

M.B. Automobiles v Kampala Bus Service [1966] EA 480
Shabani v Karanda Co. Ltd [1973] EA 497
National Union of Clerical Commercial Professional and Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
Rawal v Mombasa Hardware Ltd [1968] EA 392
Adonia v Mutekanga [1970] EA 429
Mukisa Biscuits Co. v West End Distributors [1969] EA 696
Mulji v Jadavi [1963] EA 217
Saldanha's case

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.