Wakilii

Byaruhanga and 27 Others v Uganda Land Commission and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1595 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 182 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal order and reinstate civil suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the 3rd Respondent. Applicants at liberty to appeal or file a fresh suit.

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

Application to reinstate a civil suit dismissed for want of prosecution was refused. The court held that where plaintiffs failed to prosecute their case for close to 14 years despite multiple adjournments, dismissal was proper and no special circumstances existed to warrant invoking inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act. Recourse lies by way of appeal or fresh suit subject to limitation.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the 3rd Respondent. Applicants at liberty to appeal or file a fresh suit.

Facts

Applicants filed Civil Suit No. 449 of 2008 on 26 November 2008. The case was called on twelve occasions between 2015 and 2019 without prosecution and was dismissed for want of prosecution on 5 September 2019. By consent of all parties it was reinstated on 4 June 2021. It was subsequently called on three further occasions and dismissed again for want of prosecution on 29 June 2022. On that date, neither party appeared in court. The applicants filed this application under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 9 rule 18 seeking to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the suit. They contended that their lawyer was in court at 9:00 am but the matter was called earlier and dismissed. The 1st applicant stated he was sick and unable to attend. The 3rd respondent opposed, arguing the application was an abuse of process as this was the fourth time applicants sought reinstatement of a case they had repeatedly failed to prosecute over 14 years.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Suit No. 449 of 2008 should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 3rd Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Effect and Recourse
Dismissal for want of prosecution seals the matter for the plaintiff in the same court which issued the dismissal order, and recourse can only be had by way of appeal or commencement of a fresh action subject to the law of limitation.
Civil Procedure — Reinstatement of Dismissed Suit — Inherent Powers under Section 98 Civil Procedure Act — Exercise
The court's inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to reinstate a suit dismissed for want of prosecution will only be exercised where special circumstances exist to warrant such intervention.
Evidence — Hearsay — Reliance on Information from Lawyer — Absence of Supporting Affidavit
Where an applicant relies on information from a lawyer that the lawyer attended court but does not disclose the particulars of the lawyer and the lawyer does not swear any affidavit to verify the fact, the evidence remains hearsay and cannot be relied upon by the court.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Fourteen Year Delay — No Special Circumstances
Where a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case for close to fourteen years despite multiple adjournments, dismissal for want of prosecution is proper and no special circumstances exist to warrant the exercise of the court's inherent powers to reinstate the suit.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Gold Beverages (U) Ltd v Muhangura Kenneth and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 674 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Byaruhanga_and_27_Others_v_Uganda_Land_Commission_and_2_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_1595_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_182_(30_June_2023)
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.