Wakilii

Bulayi Geofrey and Kantinti Edward Mbazira v Patrick James Batanda and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 3187 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 144 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of abatement ruling arising from Civil Suit No. 672 of 2024
Decision
Application dismissed as improperly brought

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 an abated suit cannot be revived by way of an application for review. Where a suit has abated under Order XIA rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to take out summons for directions, the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to file a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation as provided under Order XIA rule 1(7). An application for review of an abatement ruling is procedurally improper and untenable. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed as improperly brought

Facts

The applicants filed an application seeking review of a ruling delivered by Lady Justice Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya on 18 October 2024 which abated Civil Suit No. 672 of 2024. The suit concerned land comprised in Kyadondo Block 253 Plot 415 at Lukuli. The suit was abated for failure by the plaintiffs to take out summons for directions within the prescribed time under Order XIA rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicants contended that they had diligently requested summons for directions on 27 August 2024 and filed on ECCMIS, and that the 1st respondent had fraudulently moved court to abate the suit. The applicants sought to have the abatement ruling reviewed and substituted with appropriate orders. The 1st respondent raised a preliminary objection that an abated suit cannot be revived by way of review.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant application is properly brought before this court?
  2. Whether the instant application discloses any grounds for review?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The instant application is improperly brought before this court.
  • The application is hereby dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suit — Remedy After Abatement — Review Not Available
Where a suit has abated under Order XIA rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to take out summons for directions, the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to file a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation as provided under Order XIA rule 1(7) of the Civil Procedure Rules. An abated suit cannot be revived by way of an application for review.
Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Failure to Extract — Consequence
Under Order XIA rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (Amendment) 2019, where a suit has been instituted by way of plaint, the plaintiff shall take out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of the last reply or rejoinder. If the plaintiff fails to take out summons for directions in accordance with this rule, the suit shall abate under Order XIA rule 1(6).
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objection — Point of Law
A preliminary point of law is one that can be raised at any time during the proceedings of court and if argued may dispose of the suit. In determining a preliminary point of law, the court must consider the pleadings and assume the contents therein to be correct.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kalemera Sam Wilson v Kaggwa Christopher Chris (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 776 of 2023)
  • Lweza Clays and Another v Tropical Bank and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2018)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors (1969) 1 EA 696
  • Abdul Ddamulira v Xsabo Power Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 046 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bulayi_Geofrey_and_Kantinti_Edward_Mbazira_v_Patrick_James_Batanda_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._3187_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_144_(15_July_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.