Wakilii

Aine Christine v Kivumbi Ambrose and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1944 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 174 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal order and reinstate Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2025
Decision
Application to set aside dismissal order dismissed; Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2025 remains dismissed

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

An application to reinstate a dismissed miscellaneous cause under Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the applicant to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance. Where the applicant relies on counsel's absence due to bereavement but counsel does not file a supporting affidavit, the averments remain hearsay and cannot establish sufficient cause. Additionally, the applicant's own failure to appear or explain her absence constitutes dilatory conduct. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application to set aside dismissal order dismissed; Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2025 remains dismissed

Facts

The Applicant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2025 seeking leave to appeal out of time and validation of a served Notice of Appeal. The matter was fixed for hearing on 3 September 2025. Neither the Applicant nor her counsel appeared in court on the scheduled date. The Applicant's counsel did not attend because he had travelled to his village in Kalaki for the burial of his brother, Okello Aaron, who had died on 29 August 2025. The court dismissed Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2025 for non-appearance under Order 9 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant then brought this application to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the miscellaneous cause, arguing that the non-appearance was due to counsel's bereavement and not negligence or dilatory conduct.

Issues

  1. Whether the order dismissing Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2025 should be set aside.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reinstatement of Dismissed Suit — Sufficient Cause — Hearsay Evidence in Affidavits
Where an applicant seeks to reinstate a suit dismissed for non-appearance under Order 9 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules by relying on Order 9 rule 23, the applicant must demonstrate sufficient cause for the non-appearance. Where the applicant's affidavit states that counsel did not attend due to bereavement but counsel himself does not file a supporting affidavit to verify the fact, the averments remain hearsay and cannot be relied upon by the court to establish sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Reinstatement of Dismissed Suit — Applicant's Own Non-Appearance — Dilatory Conduct
Where an applicant seeks reinstatement of a dismissed suit on the ground that counsel was prevented from attending, the applicant must also explain her own failure to appear. An applicant who does not attend court on the scheduled date to inform the court of counsel's absence or to apply for an adjournment demonstrates dilatory conduct that is not acceptable to the court.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Hearsay — Personal Knowledge of Facts
A person swearing an affidavit in support of an application must have personal knowledge of the facts involved. Failure to uphold this rule cannot be cured merely by stating the source of information. The rules that apply to hearsay evidence also apply to affidavit evidence.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Eric Tibebaga v Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 2002)
  • Joel Kato and Margaret Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Supreme Court 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_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1944_of_2025)_[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.