Wakilii

Bekabye & Others V Musoke Bulasio & Others (Misc. Application No. 453 of 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCLD 44 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal order and reinstate suit arising from Civil Suit No. 254 of 2012
Decision
Dismissal order set aside and matter reinstated for hearing on merits

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court Land Division set aside the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 254/2012 and reinstated the suit. The court held that although the applicants' failure to hear their matter called due to noise from other litigants did not constitute sufficient cause, they had demonstrated vigilance in prosecuting their case and brought the application within a reasonable time. The dismissal had been made under Order 9 rule 17 when neither party appeared. The applicants should not be blamed unheard having been vigilant throughout the proceedings.

Outcome

Dismissal order set aside and matter reinstated for hearing on merits

Facts

The applicants, as administrators of the estate of the late Leuben Nsereko Mukasa, instituted Civil Suit No. 254 of 2012 against the respondents (also administrators of the same estate) for recovery of estate land. The suit was scheduled for hearing on 19 March 2019 at 10:00 am. Three applicants were present in the court corridors among other litigants but did not hear when the suit was called. The court called matters set for mention before proceeding to matters fixed for hearing, thus calling the applicants' 10:00 am matter earlier than expected. When counsel inquired about the suit, he was informed it had been called and dismissed for non-attendance under Order 9 rule 17 when neither party appeared. The applicants filed this application on 28 March 2019 seeking to set aside the dismissal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants were prevented by sufficient cause from attending court on 19 March 2019 when the suit was called and dismissed for non-attendance.
  2. Whether the applicants are guilty of dilatory conduct.
  3. Whether it is just and equitable to grant the application to set aside the dismissal order.

Orders

  • The order dismissing Civil Suit No. 254 of 2012 is hereby set aside.
  • Civil Suit No. 254 of 2012 is hereby reinstated to be tried on its merits.
  • The applicants to pay costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reinstatement of Dismissed Suits — Sufficient Cause — Order 9 rule 23
Under Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an order dismissing a suit may be set aside where the applicant satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance when the suit was called for hearing, and sufficient cause is demonstrated by showing an honest intention of attending court and diligence in applying for reinstatement.
Civil Procedure — Sufficient Cause — Definition and Application
Sufficient cause relates to the inability or failure to take a necessary step in time and depends on the circumstances of each case; it is demonstrated by showing an honest intention of attending court and diligence in applying for reinstatement within a reasonable period.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Non-Appearance — Order 9 rule 17
Where neither party appears when a suit is called for hearing, the court may dismiss the suit under Order 9 rule 17, but such dismissal may be set aside under Order 9 rule 23 where the applicant demonstrates sufficient cause and has been vigilant in prosecuting the case.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.23
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.22
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.17
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.20

Cases cited (4)

  • Mugo versus Wanjiri E.A (481) quoted in Misc 443/14 Pina Bank Ltd versus Stanbic Bank
  • Motor Mart v Kanyomozi (SCCA No. 06 of 1999)
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Stanbic Bank of Uganda Ltd (HCMA No. 0181 of 2005)
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Zinsobedde (Civil Application No. 5 of 1997)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Bekabye_&_Others_V_Musoke_Bulasio_&_Others_(Misc._Application_No._453_of_2019)_[2019]_UGHCLD_44_(9_July_2019)
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.