Wakilii

Bishop Jacinto Kibuuka v Uganda Catholic Lawyers Society and 2 Others (Misc. Application No.696 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 320 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal of Misc. Application No. 039 of 2018 for non-appearance and for reinstatement to be heard on merits
Decision
Dismissal order set aside and underlying application reinstated for hearing on merits

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 held that the inadvertent failure of the applicant's counsel to attend court or inform the applicant of the hearing date constituted sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court applied the principle that mistakes or omissions of counsel should not be visited upon an innocent litigant and set aside the dismissal order, reinstating the application to be heard on its merits.

Outcome

Dismissal order set aside and underlying application reinstated for hearing on merits

Facts

The applicant filed Misc. Cause No. 414 of 2017 and Misc. Application No. 850 of 2017 concerning private criminal proceedings and seeking injunctive orders. The parties attempted settlement and a consent order was endorsed, which the applicant alleged was contrary to his instructions. The applicant filed Misc. Application No. 039 of 2018 to set aside the consent order. When that application came up for hearing on 1st November 2018, the applicant's counsel did not attend court owing to illness and did not brief another lawyer or inform the applicant. The application was dismissed for non-appearance. The applicant filed Misc. Application No. 696 of 2018 seeking to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal of Misc. Application No. 039 of 2018 for non-appearance.
  2. Whether the failure of the applicant's counsel to attend court constitutes sufficient cause to warrant reinstatement of the dismissed application.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Order of dismissal set aside.
  • Misc. Application No. 039 of 2018 reinstated to be heard on merits.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Dismissal — Sufficient Cause — Counsel's Failure to Attend
The inadvertent failure of counsel to attend court or to inform the client of the hearing date constitutes sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside a dismissal for non-appearance and reinstate the matter for hearing on merits.
Civil Procedure — Sufficient Cause — Meaning and Interpretation
The term 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice where no negligence, inaction, or want of bona fides is imputed to the applicant. It embraces circumstances where a party has not acted negligently or lacked bona fides in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Civil Procedure — Counsel's Mistake — Effect on Litigant's Rights
A mistake, negligence, oversight, or error on the part of counsel should not be visited on the innocent litigant. Such mistake constitutes just cause entitling the trial judge to exercise discretion so that the matter is considered on its merits.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (13)

  • Gideon Mosa Onchwati v Kenya Oil Co Ltd & Another [2017] eKLR
  • Parimal vs Veena
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (SCCA No. 8 of 1998)
  • Canster Rags (U) Ltd v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Another (Misc. Application No. 401 of 2014)
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobodde (SC Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
  • Sipiriya Kyaturesire v Justine Bakachulike Bagambe (CA No. 20 of 1995)
  • Mugo vs. Wanjiru (Supra)
  • Essaji vs. Solanki (supra)
  • Attorney General vs. Oriental Construction Limited (supra)
  • Kaderbhai & Another v Shamsherali & Others (SC Civil Application No. 20 of 2008)
  • Attorney General v AKPM Lutaaya (SCCA No. 12 of 2007)
  • Godfrey Mageze & Brian Mbazira v Sudhir Ruparelia (SCC Application No. 10 of 2002)
  • Joel Kato & Another v Nuulu Nalwoga (Misc. Application No. 04 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bishop Jacinto Kibuuka v Uganda Catholic Lawyers Society and 2 Others (Misc. Application No.696 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 320 (11 April 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.