Wakilii

Aine Christine v Kivumbi Ambrose and Others [2026] UGHCLD 174

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside a dismissal for non-appearance and reinstate Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2025
Decision
Application dismissed with costs; the order dismissing Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2025 stands

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 dismissed an application to reinstate a cause struck out for non-appearance under Order 9 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Reinstatement under Order 9 rule 23 requires proof of sufficient cause, which is a question of fact. The applicant's assertion that her advocate was absent because of his brother's burial was hearsay in the absence of a verifying affidavit from the advocate himself. Further, the applicant offered no explanation for her own failure to attend; she ought to have appeared personally to explain counsel's absence and seek an adjournment. Her failure to follow up after instructing counsel amounted to dilatory conduct. Application dismissed with costs to the first three respondents.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs; the order dismissing Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2025 stands

Facts

The applicant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2025 in the High Court (Land Division) seeking leave to appeal out of time and validation of a notice of appeal, arising from Civil Suit No. 138 of 2024 in the Chief Magistrates Court of Mengo. Her advocate had the matter fixed for hearing on 3 September 2025 at 11:00 am. Neither the applicant nor her advocate attended, and the cause was dismissed for non-appearance. She then applied to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the cause, deposing that her advocate had travelled to Kalaki for the burial of his brother, who died on 29 August 2025, and that her failure to attend was not due to negligence or dilatory conduct. The advocate filed no affidavit verifying the bereavement. The first three respondents, through an affidavit sworn by their advocate, contended the application was frivolous and vexatious and that no reason had been advanced for the applicant's own failure to attend. The fourth respondent did not respond despite service, and the matter proceeded ex parte against it.

Issues

  1. Whether the order dismissing Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2025 for non-appearance should be set aside and the cause reinstated.
  2. Whether an applicant's affidavit deposing to the reason for her advocate's absence, unsupported by an affidavit from the advocate, is admissible proof of sufficient cause.

Orders

  • The application to set aside the order dismissing Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2025 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Non-Appearance — Reinstatement under Order 9 rule 23 — Sufficient Cause as a Question of Fact
A suit or cause dismissed under Order 9 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules may be reinstated only where the applicant establishes that he or she was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the matter was called, and what constitutes sufficient cause is a question of fact to be proved on the evidence.
Evidence — Affidavits — Hearsay — Deponent Must Have Personal Knowledge of Facts Deposed To
A deponent must have personal knowledge of the facts deposed to; where an applicant asserts facts personal to her advocate, such as the advocate's bereavement, without a verifying affidavit from the advocate, the averments are hearsay and cannot be relied upon by the court.
Civil Procedure — Duty of a Litigant — Personal Attendance and Follow-Up — Dilatory Conduct
A litigant who instructs an advocate remains under a duty to follow up on her case; failure to attend court personally on the appointed date, to explain counsel's absence and seek an adjournment, constitutes dilatory conduct which defeats an application for reinstatement.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Eric Tibebaga v Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and Others (Civil Application No. 18 of 2002)
  • Joel Kato and Margaret Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Aine Christine v Kivumbi Ambrose and Others [2026] UGHCLD 174 (5 May 2026)
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.