Wakilii

AGSRI Agricultural Services Private Limited v Horyal Investments Holding Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0185 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 169 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal order and for enlargement of time to file submissions in underlying civil suit
Decision
Dismissal order set aside and suit reinstated with directions for filing submissions

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

The court allowed the application to set aside the dismissal order under its inherent powers pursuant to Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court found that although the applicant's counsel failed to file submissions as directed, and the applicant showed dilatory conduct in prosecuting the application, the matter was at an advanced stage of litigation and reinstatement would serve the interests of finality and judicial economy. The dismissal order was set aside, the suit reinstated, and time enlarged for filing submissions, with costs awarded to the respondent.

Outcome

Dismissal order set aside and suit reinstated with directions for filing submissions

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 7 of 2017 (later renumbered as Civil Suit No. 148 of 2020) seeking recovery of USD 65,359 under a consultancy services agreement dated 11 July 2015. The applicant closed its case on 18 October 2019. The hearing of the defence case was adjourned multiple times due to witnesses being out of the country and other reasons. On 9 February 2021, the hearing closed and the court directed parties to file written submissions. The applicant's counsel failed to file submissions within the time directed. On 28 November 2022, the court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution, noting no action had been taken since 21 October 2019. The applicant filed this application on 12 January 2023 to set aside the dismissal, but the application was only fixed for hearing on 8 April 2025, more than two years after filing.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant setting aside the dismissal order and reinstating Civil Suit No. 07 of 2017?
  2. Whether there are sufficient grounds to enlarge and/or grant the Applicant leave to file its submission out of time?

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Dismissal order in Civil Suit No. 7 of 2017 set aside.
  • Civil Suit No. 7 of 2017 reinstated for filing of submissions.
  • Plaintiff to file its submission within 10 days of this ruling.
  • Defendant to file its submission within 10 days after service by the Plaintiff.
  • Any rejoinder to be filed within 4 days after the Defendant's submission.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reinstatement of Dismissed Suit — Sufficient Cause — Test and Principles
Under Order 9 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the test for reinstatement of a dismissed suit is proof of sufficient cause that prevented the plaintiff from taking necessary steps. Sufficient cause must relate to the inability or failure to take necessary steps within the prescribed time, and the meaning is left to judicial discretion based on the facts, surrounding circumstances, and merits of each case to ensure the ends of justice.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — When Not Visited on Client — Requirement of Client Diligence
While negligence of counsel ought not to be visited on an innocent litigant, this principle is not absolute. Before an applicant can be excused from the mistakes of counsel, the applicant must show that he was not in any way negligent and that he took proactive steps in correcting the errors of counsel when he first became aware of the default. A litigant should not simply instruct an advocate and sit back but should continue to engage and follow up regularly for updates on the progress of the case.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Exercise of Discretion — Balancing Factors
In exercising discretion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside a dismissal order, the court must take a holistic approach and consider all factors including the conduct of the parties, whether there was dilatory conduct, the stage of the proceedings, and the interests of finality and judicial economy. Where a matter is at an advanced stage of litigation, the court may allow reinstatement to bring an ending to disputes and save court time from hearing a new suit on the same dispute, even where the applicant's conduct has not been exemplary.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (24)

  • John William Beyagala v Yunusu Kasumba (HCMA No. 622 of 2011)
  • Shaban Din v Ram Parkash Anamb [1955] EACA 48
  • Zirabamuzale v Corret [1962] EA 698
  • Ofono Yeri Appoio v Sanjay Tanna & Anor [2007] HCB 68
  • Gideon Mosa Onchwati v Kenya Oil Co. Ltd & Another [2017] eKLR
  • Parimal vs Veena
  • Banco Arab Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Kibuuka v Uganda Catholic Lawyers Society & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 696 of 2018)
  • Hakan Turkmen & Anor v Petua Kateeba (HCMA No. 0619 of 2024)
  • Kananura v Kaijuka (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 15 of 2016)
  • Juliet Nabagala (Executrix of the estate of the late Scholastic Nanteza) v Tereza Mbiro
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Kyegegwa District Local Government v Aharikundira Margaret (HCMA No. 25 of 2022)
  • Tiberio Okeny & Anor v Attorney General and 25 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)
  • Zam Nalumansi v Sulaiman Lule (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1992)
  • Mary Kyamulabi v Ahmed Zirondemu (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1979)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Sham Sherali Zaver (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2001)
  • Okech Verkam v Centenary Rural Development Bank (HCCA No. 93 of 2019)
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
  • Sabiiti Kachope and three others v Margaret Kamuje (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 31 of 1997) [1999] KLR 238
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Harry Ssempa v Kamabagambire David (HCCS No. 408 of 2014)
  • Lyamuleme David v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013)
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

AGSRI Agricultural Services Private Limited v Horyal Investments Holding Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0185 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 169 (30 May 2025)
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.