Ayub Sulaiman v Salim Kabambalo [1998] UGSC 5
Observed later treatment
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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Although the trial court had dismissed the suit under Order 15 r.5 (which did not apply), the dismissal occasioned no injustice because the court possessed inherent jurisdiction under s.101 of the Civil Procedure Act to dismiss for want of prosecution where no specific rule applied. The appellant's application to review under Order 42 r.2 was misconceived: the proper remedies were to set aside the dismissal under Order 9 r.20 (on showing sufficient cause for non-appearance) or to appeal. The appellant was guilty of inordinate, unexplained delay (laches), and Article 126(2) of the Constitution is not a license for non-compliance with procedure.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent; the dismissal of the underlying suit stands
Facts
In 1986 the appellant sued the respondent for recovery of land at Kisugu, Kampala (Kyadondo Block 244 plot 2944). The suit was first listed for hearing on 19 December 1990 but was adjourned repeatedly at the instance of the appellant, who was frequently abroad in Hong Kong. On 30 November 1993, when the appellant's counsel again sought an adjournment on the ground of the appellant's absence, the trial Judge (Ongom J) refused and dismissed the suit for want of prosecution under Order 15 r.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with costs to the respondent. The appellant applied to review that dismissal; Ouma J heard and dismissed the application on 27 February 1995. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, where he ultimately appeared in person and filed written submissions after his counsel declined the brief.
Issues
- Whether the trial Judge erred in law or fact in dismissing the appellant's application to review the ruling that had dismissed his suit for want of prosecution.
- Whether the court could invoke its inherent jurisdiction under s.101 of the Civil Procedure Act to dismiss a suit where none of the specific provisions of Order 15 applied.
- Whether an application for review under Order 42 was the proper remedy against the dismissal of the suit.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
Cases cited (8)
- M.B. Automobiles v Kampala Bus Service [1966] EA 480
- Shabani v Karanda Co. Ltd [1973] EA 497
- National Union of Clerical Commercial Professional and Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
- Rawal v Mombasa Hardware Ltd [1968] EA 392
- Adonia v Mutekanga [1970] EA 429
- Mukisa Biscuits Co. v West End Distributors [1969] EA 696
- Mulji v Jadavi [1963] EA 217
- Saldanha's case
Cases citing this judgment (1)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.