Asaph Muhanguzi v Richard Kyalimpa and Kijwiga International Limited (HCCS 169 of 1996)

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.

Holding

Suit dismissed under Order 15 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution. Neither party had taken any steps to proceed with the suit for over three years following the grant of substituted service in April 2000. The court concluded the parties were no longer interested in the matter.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for want of prosecution; plaintiff at liberty to bring fresh suit subject to limitation

Facts

The plaintiff claimed Shs. 5,000,000 plus interest and costs arising from a bounced Nile Bank cheque issued by the second defendant as refund for timber allegedly not supplied in early 1995. The plaint was filed on 23 February 1996. The defendants filed a defence on 4 March 1996 stating the timber had been fully supplied after the cheque bounced. An application for substituted service was filed in May 1998 and went through multiple adjournments and dismissals before being granted on 27 April 2000. The matter was adjourned to 30 June 2000 for hearing but no further steps were taken by either party for over three years.

Issues

1. Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 15 rule 6 given no steps taken by either party for over three years

Orders

• Suit dismissed under Order 15 rule 6.
• Plaintiff may bring a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation.

Legislation cited (2)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 14

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