Wakilii

Besimira Moses v Matia Kijjambu and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2681 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 131 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside reinstatement order and for leave to amend pleadings, arising from Civil Suit No. 385 of 2019
Decision
Application partly allowed — applicant granted leave to file trial bundle and provide input in scheduling memorandum; other prayers dismissed

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 High Court Commercial Division dismissed the applicant's request to set aside a reinstatement order, finding he was duly notified via ECCMIS. The court granted leave to file a trial bundle and provide input in the Joint Scheduling Memorandum but refused leave to amend the defence to introduce a counterclaim, as no particulars justifying the amendment were provided. The court also declined to add the Commissioner of Land Registration as a party, finding his presence not necessary for effective disposal of the suit.

Outcome

Application partly allowed — applicant granted leave to file trial bundle and provide input in scheduling memorandum; other prayers dismissed

Facts

The applicant was the 1st defendant in Civil Suit No. 385 of 2019, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20 March 2024. The plaintiff applied for reinstatement via Miscellaneous Application No. 673 of 2024, citing counsel's involvement in a fatal accident and arrest on the hearing date. The reinstatement application was served via ECCMIS, and the court granted it on 30 October 2024. The applicant claimed he was never served with the reinstatement application or order and only learned of the revival when served with a subsequent application. He sought to set aside the reinstatement order, or alternatively, to file his trial bundle, amend his defence to add a counterclaim and cross-claim, and add the Commissioner of Land Registration as a party. The 2nd respondent opposed, contending all parties were notified via ECCMIS and that the applicant had already filed his witness statement.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the reinstatement order of Civil Suit No. 385 of 2019 and the Court proceedings arising thereafter?
  2. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file his trial bundle, witness statements and provide input in the Joint Scheduling Memorandum?
  3. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend his written statement of defence and introduce a counterclaim?
  4. Whether the Commissioner of Land Registration should be added as a party to the suit?

Orders

  • Application to set aside reinstatement order dismissed.
  • Applicant granted leave to file trial bundle and provide input in Joint Scheduling Memorandum within seven days.
  • Application to amend written statement of defence to introduce counterclaim dismissed.
  • Application to add Commissioner of Land Registration as party dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Electronic Filing and Service — ECCMIS Notification
Where a party is linked to the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) and an application is filed and served through that system, the party is deemed duly notified of the application and its hearing, and cannot successfully claim non-service.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Orders — Reinstatement Orders — Grounds for Setting Aside
A reinstatement order will not be set aside on grounds of non-service where the record shows the applicant was duly notified via ECCMIS, and subsequent proceedings did not determine any party's interest in the suit or prejudice the applicant's case.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Counterclaims — Requirement for Particulars
An application to amend a written statement of defence to introduce a counterclaim must provide particulars justifying the amendment. Where no particulars are provided to justify the amendment and introduction of the counterclaim and cross-claim, the application will be refused.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Necessary Parties — Commissioner of Land Registration
The Commissioner of Land Registration will not be added as a necessary party to a suit merely because he is the one who implements court orders relating to the register of lands. His presence must be shown to be necessary for the effective disposal of the suit under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (15)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
  • Sipiriya Kyarulesire v Justine Bakanchulike Bagambe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] 1 EA 461
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Omumbejja Namusisi v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Application No. 1199 of 2013)
  • Biiso v Tibamwenda [1991] HCB 92
  • Hill & Grant Ltd v Hodson [1934] Ch D 53
  • Mukalazi Samuel Balukusa v Nansubuga Hanifaf (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 126 of 2025)
  • Phenix of Uganda Assurance Co. Ltd v Kuti Investments Ltd & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 679 of 2023)
  • Kasozi Joseph & Another v The Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 905 of 2021)
  • Kololo Curing Co. Ltd v West Mengo Co-op Union Ltd [1981] HCB 6
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994) [1997] HCB 29
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998) [1999] UGSC 2
  • Amon Vs Raphael

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Besimira Moses v Matia Kijjambu and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2681 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 131 (15 April 2026)
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.