Wakilii

Asiimwe and Another v Ntegeka s/o Kutaga (Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 342 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside dismissal order, reinstate dismissed appeal, extend time to file memorandum of appeal, and stay execution
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 the application, holding that the applicants failed to show sufficient cause for reinstatement of their dismissed appeal and application. The applicants were guilty of dilatory conduct, having failed to file a memorandum of appeal from 2017 to 2019 and failing to prosecute their reinstatement application from 2019 to 2022. COVID-19 lockdown excuses were rejected as insufficient explanation for the prolonged inaction.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicants were plaintiffs in a trespass suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court which was dismissed with judgment for the respondent on 17 June 2017. They filed a notice of appeal on 17 July 2017 but failed to file a memorandum of appeal. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 21 May 2019. The applicants then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 58 of 2019 to set aside the dismissal, which was itself dismissed for want of prosecution on 21 March 2022. The applicants then filed the instant application seeking to review the dismissal of Misc. Application No. 58 of 2019, reinstate Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2017, extend time to file the memorandum of appeal, and stay execution. The applicants attributed their inaction to COVID-19 lockdowns, alleged disappearance of court files, and delays in obtaining the typed record.

Issues

  1. Whether the order dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 58 of 2019 should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. Whether Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2017 should be re-admitted and the dismissal order set aside.
  3. Whether time should be extended to file and serve the memorandum of appeal.
  4. Whether execution should be stayed.
  5. Whether the applicants showed sufficient cause for the reinstatement of their appeal and application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Duty to File and Serve
A respondent has a constitutional and ordinary right to have knowledge of any proceedings against him, which means they are entitled to be served with the memorandum of appeal just as much as a defendant or respondent in any other type of civil proceedings would be.
Civil Procedure — Reinstatement of Dismissed Appeals — Sufficient Cause
For any suit or appeal which has been dismissed for want of prosecution or failure of service of court process to be reinstated, sufficient reason must be shown. Sufficient cause depends on the circumstances of each case and must relate to inability or failure to take a particular step in time, not to taking a wrong decision.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Dilatory Conduct
If an applicant is found to be guilty of dilatory conduct, time will not be extended. A litigant who sleeps on his rights cannot wake up later and upon dismissal plead disability.
Civil Procedure — Want of Prosecution — Public Policy
Public policy demands that the business of courts should be conducted with expedition. Courts are provided with administrative machinery aimed at helping them to disencumber themselves of case records in which the parties appear to have lost interest.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (8)

  • Lubega Robert Smith and 2 Others v Walonze Malaki (High Court Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Katsigazi Benson v Lorna Musanyusa Kamau (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 40
  • Hikima Kyamanywa v Sajjabi Chris (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Magode James Ikuya v Waniaye Magidu (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 225 of 2015)
  • Fitz Patrick v Bartger & Co. Ltd [1967] 2 All ER 657
  • Victory Construction Company v Duggal [1962] EA 697
  • Erasto Mburawabwiko v Balamu Kiiza (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Asiimwe and Another v Ntegeka s_o Kutaga (Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 342 (15 May 2023)
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.