Wakilii

Babuyirana Butchermen Development Association v Attorney General & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 31 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal of High Court Civil Suit No. 11 of 2020 for want of prosecution
Decision
Application to set aside dismissal of underlying civil suit dismissed; original dismissal for want of prosecution 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

Held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for setting aside the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. Neither the Applicant nor their advocates attended court on any of the seven occasions when the matter was cause-listed over a period of more than one year. While the Applicant claimed their advocate was ill, the evidence of illness was inconsistent and inadequate, and in any event, under the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, an ill advocate must brief a partner, professional assistant, or another advocate acceptable to the client. The Applicant failed to show due diligence in prosecuting the case. The application to set aside the dismissal was therefore dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Outcome

Application to set aside dismissal of underlying civil suit dismissed; original dismissal for want of prosecution stands

Facts

The Applicant filed High Court Civil Suit No. 11 of 2020 at Fort Portal on 9 March 2020. After the Defendants filed their Written Statements of Defence, the Applicant failed to extract Summons for Directions within the prescribed time and did not prosecute the case. Between 17 June 2022 and 20 October 2023, the suit was cause-listed seven times. Neither the Applicant nor their advocate appeared on any occasion. On 20 October 2023, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. The Applicant filed this application approximately seven months later, in 2024, seeking to set aside the dismissal. The Applicant claimed their advocate Mr. Baluku Godfrey had been admitted to clinics with malaria and hypertension in August and October 2023. The Applicant had allegedly changed advocates on 4 April 2023 due to the previous advocate's illness, though no evidence of this earlier illness was provided. The second Respondent had taxed costs of UGX 22,000,000 against the Applicant following the dismissal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has shown any sufficient cause why the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 11 of 2020 at the High Court in Fort Portal should be set aside.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Dismissal — Want of Prosecution — Sufficient Cause
An applicant seeking to set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act must demonstrate sufficient cause for their failure to prosecute the suit; prolonged absence from court over multiple hearings without adequate explanation or demonstration of due diligence constitutes failure to show sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Advocates' Conduct — Professional Obligations — Illness of Counsel
Under Regulation 5 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, an advocate who is unable to attend court must brief a partner, professional assistant, or another advocate acceptable to the client; illness of a single advocate does not excuse non-appearance where no evidence is led to show why alternative representation could not be secured.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Hearsay — Facts Within Knowledge of Deponent
Under Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, facts stated in an affidavit are admissible if they are within the knowledge of the deponent, including facts known by virtue of annexed documents; such evidence is not hearsay, but the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act remains on the party asserting the fact, and material inconsistencies between the affidavit and supporting documents may result in failure to discharge that burden.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Severance of Inadmissible Matter
Where an affidavit contains inadmissible or unreliable matters that can be severed without rendering the remaining part meaningless, the court is justified in severing the offending part and using the rest of the affidavit.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • RM Market Links (U) Ltd & 3 Others v Ugafin (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 334 of 2014)
  • Eriga Jos Perino v Vuzzi Azza Victor & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2017)
  • Mzee Khalifan v Sara Ayubu & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2023)
  • Parimal v Veema - Civil Appeal No. 1467 of 2011
  • Twiga Chemical Industries Ltd v Viola Bamusedde t/a Tripple B Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2002)
  • Col (RTD) Dr. Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Babuyirana Butchermen Development Association v Attorney General & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 31 (21 January 2025)
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.