Wakilii

Candia David and Another v Draleru Monica (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 337 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Deputy Registrar's decision dismissing Originating Summons No. 022 of 2020
Decision
Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; originating summons reinstated for determination 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

Held that the Acting Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to dismiss Originating Summons No. 022 of 2020 under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as dismissal of a civil suit for non-appearance is a substantive matter reserved for a Judge, not a Registrar. The Registrar's jurisdiction is strictly limited to matters expressly provided under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction No. 1 of 2002. A decision made without jurisdiction is a nullity. The dismissal order was set aside and the originating summons reinstated.

Outcome

Application allowed; dismissal order set aside; originating summons reinstated for determination on merits

Facts

The 2nd Applicant, as executrix of the estate of the late Dr. Aliga Richard Okpoci, and the Respondent (the deceased's widow) had previously entered a consent judgment in Miscellaneous Application No. 0013 of 2009 varying the deceased's will to allow the Respondent to collect rent from estate property at Oli D Cell. The Applicants subsequently filed Originating Summons No. 022 of 2020 to determine the propriety of that consent judgment, whether the Respondent should account for estate property, and whether she should be restrained from collecting rent. On 26 October 2023, when the matter came before the Acting Deputy Registrar for hearing, the Applicants were not present. Counsel for the Respondent moved to dismiss the suit, which the Deputy Registrar granted under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicants then filed this application for review, contending that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the decision of the Acting Deputy Registrar to dismiss the suit was made without jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the application for review is competent before the court.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The order dismissing Originating Summons No. 0022 of 2020 is hereby set aside.
  • Originating Summons No. 0022 of 2020 is hereby reinstated and shall be determined on its merits.
  • The costs of the application are awarded to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction of Registrars — Limits on Powers — Dismissal of Suits
The jurisdiction of Registrars of the High Court is strictly limited to matters expressly provided under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction No. 1 of 2002. Dismissal of a civil suit for non-appearance of a party is a substantive matter reserved for a Judge and is not within the jurisdiction of a Registrar.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Nature and Source — Statutory Creation
Jurisdiction is created by statute or law and must be expressly provided. Jurisdiction cannot be inferred, implied, or assumed. Any exercise of jurisdiction not provided for by law renders the decision a nullity.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Lack of Jurisdiction
An issue of jurisdiction constitutes a sufficient reason under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules to warrant review of a judgment or decision, even where the applicant does not expressly specify the statutory ground for review.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Review of Registrar's Decisions — Forum
The Registrar does not have review powers over their own decisions. The power to review judgments or orders of the High Court, including those entered by the Registrar, is vested in the Judge of the High Court, not the Registrar who passed the decree.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction of Registrars — Auxiliary Nature — Scope of Powers
The jurisdiction exercised by a Registrar of the High Court is purely auxiliary, neither original, appellate, nor revisional. Registrars can only grant auxiliary reliefs of a routine and formal nature pending determination of substantive reliefs by the Judge. Their powers are limited to those expressly conferred by Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules and those ancillary to the exercise of that auxiliary jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Nalebe Kiyingi v Ssolome Bbosa and Two Others (HCMA No. 213 of 2013)
  • F.X Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Attorney General and Another v James Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Uganda Railway Corporation v Ekwaru D.O and 5104 (SCCA No. 7 of 2019)
  • Uganda v Hon. Kasiano Wadri and Others (Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2018)
  • Dawaru Florence v Angumale Albino & Another (HCMA No. 96 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Candia David and Another v Draleru Monica (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 337 (14 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.