Wakilii

Abdul Ddamulira v Xsabo Power Limited (Miscellaneous Application 46 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHC 87 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal order arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 021 of 2020
Decision
Application dismissed; applicant advised to file fresh suit subject to limitation

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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

Held that where a plaintiff fails to file Summons for Directions within 28 days as required by Order XIA Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the suit abates under Order XIA Rule 6. The remedy is to file a fresh suit, not to apply for reinstatement. An affidavit commissioned by an advocate without a valid practicing certificate is null and void. An affidavit forming part of a Notice of Motion does not attract separate stamp duty.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicant advised to file fresh suit subject to limitation

Facts

The applicant filed a civil suit (H.C.C.S No. 021 of 2020) against the respondent. The respondent filed an amended Written Statement of Defence on 18 February 2021. A rejoinder was filed on 15 February 2021. The suit was fixed for hearing on 18 March 2021. The applicant failed to file Summons for Directions within 28 days of the last reply as required by Order XIA Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. On 18 March 2021, the applicant did not appear in court. The respondent's counsel raised the issue of non-compliance with the Summons for Directions requirement. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order 17 Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant then brought this application seeking to set aside the dismissal order on grounds that he had sufficient reason for his absence.

Issues

  1. Whether the dismissal of the main suit under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules was proper in circumstances where the plaintiff failed to file Summons for Directions within the prescribed time.
  2. Whether an affidavit commissioned by an advocate without a valid practicing certificate is valid.
  3. Whether an affidavit filed in support of a Notice of Motion attracts separate stamp duty.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Applicant advised to file a fresh suit.
  • Right of appeal explained.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Failure to File — Effect
Where a plaintiff fails to file Summons for Directions within 28 days from the date of the last reply or rejoinder as required by Order XIA Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the suit abates under Order XIA Rule 6.
Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suit — Remedy
The remedy once a suit abates under Order XIA Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules is to file a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation, not to apply for reinstatement under Order 9 Rule 23.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Validity — Commissioner for Oaths Without Valid Practicing Certificate
An affidavit commissioned by an advocate who does not hold a valid practicing certificate at the time of commissioning is null and void. Section 14A of the Advocates Act applies only where an advocate acting lawfully with a valid practicing certificate is denied audience, not where the advocate lacks a valid certificate.
Civil Procedure — Stamp Duty — Affidavits in Support of Notice of Motion
An affidavit filed in support of a Notice of Motion is an accompaniment of the application and not a separate document. It does not attract separate stamp duty under Section 32 of the Stamp Duty Act. Only affidavits filed as independent documents attract stamp duty.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (5)

  • A.P Bhimji Ltd v Michael Opkno (Miscellaneous Application No. 423 of 2011)
  • Proline Soccer Academy Ltd v Lawrence Mulindwa and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2009)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Mathias Lwanga Kaganda v UEB (Civil Suit No. 124 of 2003)
  • Hard Rock Quarry (U) Limited v Commissioner Land Registration and Another (Civil Appeal No. 115 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abdul Ddamulira v Xsabo Power Limited (Miscellaneous Application 46 of 2021) [2021] UGHC 87 (31 May 2021)
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.