Wakilii

Bio Pharma Centre Company Limited v Dr. Elfatih Alamin Elnour Ali (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 450 OF 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 240 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to reinstate a dismissed application for leave to appear and defend in summary suit proceedings
Decision
Application to reinstate dismissed application refused

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 dismissed an application to reinstate a previously dismissed application for leave to appear and defend. The applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for non-appearance, offering inconsistent explanations (met an accident versus involved in an accident) without supporting evidence such as medical forms or traffic accident reports. The court held that the applicant brought the application under the wrong legal provision (Order 36 Rule 11 instead of Order 9 Rule 23) as it sought to reinstate a dismissed application rather than set aside a decree.

Outcome

Application to reinstate dismissed application refused

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 104 of 2019 as a summary suit against the applicant. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 266 of 2019 seeking unconditional leave to appear and defend. On the scheduled hearing date of 3 July 2019, the applicant's counsel did not appear in time. The counsel's affidavit stated he met an accident while headed to court, causing him to arrive 15 minutes late. The director's affidavit stated he was sick and instructed his lawyer to proceed. By the time counsel arrived, the application had been dismissed for non-appearance. Judgment was subsequently entered in favour of the plaintiff and a decree extracted. The applicant then filed this application seeking to reinstate Miscellaneous Application No. 266 of 2019 and set aside the dismissal order.

Issues

  1. Whether there are any grounds to merit the setting aside of the dismissal order and reinstating of the application.
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Dismissal Orders — Appropriate Legal Basis — Distinction between Order 9 Rule 23 and Order 36 Rule 11
An application to reinstate an application dismissed for non-appearance should be brought under Order 9 Rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs setting aside of dismissals for non-appearance. Order 36 Rule 11, which provides for setting aside decrees, is not the appropriate legal basis where no decree is expressly challenged in the Notice of Motion.
Civil Procedure — Sufficient Cause for Non-Appearance — Standard of Proof Required
Where a party seeks to set aside a dismissal for non-appearance on the ground of accident or illness, the party must provide credible supporting evidence such as traffic accident reports or medical documentation where consultation with a doctor is alleged. Inconsistent explanations and absence of corroborating evidence will defeat a claim of sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Summary Proceedings — Duty of Diligence — Non-Appearance
The spirit of summary proceedings is expedient disposal. Where an applicant is granted leave to appear and defend but fails to appear for the hearing of that application without establishing sufficient cause, this constitutes a misuse of the opportunity to be heard and demonstrates inaction inconsistent with the requirements for setting aside a dismissal.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Pinnacle Projects Ltd v Business in Motion Consultants Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)
  • Bishop Jacinto Kibuuka v The Uganda Catholic Lawyers' Society & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 696 of 2018)
  • The Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam v The Chairman Bunju Village Government & Others
  • Mosa Oncwati v Kenya Oil Co. Ltd & Another [2017] KLR

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bio Pharma Centre Company Limited v Dr. Elfatih Alamin Elnour Ali (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 450 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 240 (20 December 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.