Wakilii

Chongqing International Construction Corporation (CICO) v Droti (Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 814 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to dismiss underlying civil suit for want of prosecution and on preliminary objections
Decision
Underlying civil suit dismissed; plaint struck out for failure to disclose cause of action and for offending representative order

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 court held that automatic abatement under Order XIA rule 1(6) for failure to file summons for directions is not mandatory and applying it strictly would be counterproductive. Order XVII rule 5(1) did not apply as no mandatory scheduling conference had been held. The respondent was found to have offended the representative order by filing a personal suit, constituting contempt of court. The plaint failed to disclose a cause of action as it lacked evidence of the respondent's personal interest or standing. The plaint was struck out and the underlying civil suit dismissed.

Outcome

Underlying civil suit dismissed; plaint struck out for failure to disclose cause of action and for offending representative order

Facts

The respondent filed HC Civil Suit No. 0023 of 2023 against the applicant alleging violation of NEMA regulations and environmental degradation arising from stone quarrying at Rokoze Hill. The applicant filed a written statement of defence on 14 July 2023. The applicant had earlier obtained a representative order under HC Misc. Cause No. 0004 of 2022 permitting him to file a representative suit on behalf of the Rokoze community. However, the plaint in Civil Suit No. 0023 of 2023 was filed as a personal action without mentioning the representative order or other plaintiffs. No summons for directions was taken out within 28 days of service of the defence. The applicant then brought this application to have the suit dismissed for want of prosecution and on preliminary objections that the suit had abated, offended the representative order, and failed to disclose a cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the underlying civil suit automatically abated for failure to take out summons for directions within 28 days of service of the written statement of defence under Order XIA rule 1(6).
  2. Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order XVII rule 5(1) for failure to take steps within six months after the mandatory scheduling conference.
  3. Whether the respondent offended the representative order by filing a personal suit instead of a representative suit.
  4. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action under Order 7 rule 11.
  5. Whether the respondent has capacity to institute the suit under the National Environment Act 2019.

Orders

  • The plaint of the Respondent in Civil Suit No. 0023 of 2023 is struck out under Order 6 rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Civil Suit No. 0023 of 2023 is dismissed.
  • The application is allowed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suits — Order XIA rule 1(6) — Whether Failure to File Summons for Directions Causes Automatic Mandatory Abatement
Order XIA rule 1(6) which provides that a suit shall abate if the plaintiff does not take out summons for directions within 28 days should not be construed as automatically and mandatorily causing abatement. Applying this rule strictly would be counterproductive as it would allow the plaintiff to file a fresh suit under Order XIA rule 1(7), inundating the court with repeat suits over the same subject matter. The word 'shall' in this context is directory rather than mandatory and the court retains discretion.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Order XVII rule 5(1) — Six-Month Period After Mandatory Scheduling Conference
Under Order XVII rule 5(1) as amended, abatement for want of prosecution occurs automatically when no application or step is taken by either party for six months after the mandatory scheduling conference. The six-month period does not begin to run until after the mandatory scheduling conference has been held. Where no such conference has taken place, the provision cannot be invoked.
Civil Procedure — Representative Suits — Breach of Representative Order — Filing Personal Action Instead
Where a court grants a party leave to file a representative suit on their own behalf and on behalf of others, and that party subsequently files a personal action without mentioning the representative capacity or identifying other plaintiffs, they have offended the court order and are guilty of contempt of court. A valid court order must be adhered to unless appealed or set aside.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Order 7 rule 11 — Test for Disclosure of Cause of Action
In determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action under Order 7 rule 11, the court need not go beyond the plaint itself and its annexures. Where a plaintiff claims to be a member of an affected community but does not attach any annexures showing their personal interest in the land, their standing to sue, or how they were personally affected, and merely states membership without evidence, the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action and should be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Damages — Requirement to Plead and Prove Damages
A plaintiff claiming damages must provide evidence in support of the claim and adduce facts upon which damages could be assessed. The plaintiff must furnish evidence to warrant the award of damages and provide facts forming the basis of assessment. Failure to do so is fatal to a claim for damages.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kagimu Moses Gava and Others v Sekatawa Muhammed and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2020)
  • Seruwu Jude v Swangz Avenue Limited (High Court Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2021)
  • Uganda Telecom v ZTE Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2015)
  • Waiglobe Limited v Sai Beverages Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 16 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Chongqing International Construction Corporation (CICO) v Droti (Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 814 (29 August 2024)
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.