Wakilii

Elaisah Grace Badda v Denis Ssempebwa and Another (Miscellaneous Application 622 of 2022)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 81 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal order arising from Civil Suit No. 632 of 2017
Decision
Application to set aside dismissal order refused; applicant directed to pursue appeal remedy

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 order dismissing a suit under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules is final in nature and disposes of the suit. Such an order cannot be set aside by the same court that issued it. The court becomes functus officio. The only remedy available to an aggrieved party is to appeal the decision. Where the applicant had already sought and failed to obtain leave to appeal from the High Court, the proper remedy was to seek leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application to set aside dismissal order refused; applicant directed to pursue appeal remedy

Facts

The applicant, Elaisah Grace Badda, was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 632 of 2017 claiming UGX 155,000,000 from the respondents for unjust enrichment arising from an alleged land transaction. On 16 April 2021, the trial judge gave directions for the parties to file witness statements and trial bundles by specified dates, with hearing fixed for 18 November 2021. On 18 November 2021, the applicant had not complied with the court's directions. The applicant's counsel informed court that they had filed witness statements and intended to amend pleadings and apply for virtual hearing for the plaintiff who lived in the United Kingdom. The trial judge dismissed the suit under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to comply with court directions. The applicant then sought leave to appeal, which was dismissed. The applicant filed this application seeking to set aside the dismissal order.

Issues

  1. Whether the judgment and decree in HCT-00-CV-CS-0632-2017 entered pursuant to Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules can be set aside by the High Court.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Order 17 Rule 4 — Finality of Dismissal Orders — Remedy by Appeal
An order dismissing a suit under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules is final in nature and disposes of the suit. Such an order cannot be set aside by the same court that issued it, as the court becomes functus officio. The only remedy available to an aggrieved party is to appeal the decision.
Civil Procedure — Order 17 Rule 4 — Failure to Comply with Court Directions — Discretion to Dismiss
Where a party to whom time has been granted fails to produce evidence or perform any act necessary to the further progress of the suit, the court may proceed to decide the suit immediately under Order 17 Rule 4. The rule prevents the court from being held hostage by a party who impedes the progress of the suit.
Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Exhaustion of Jurisdiction — Leave to Appeal
Where an applicant has sought and failed to obtain leave to appeal a decision from the High Court, the High Court becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside its own order. The proper remedy is to seek leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Elaisah Grace Badda v Denis Ssempebwa and Another (Miscellaneous Application 622 of 2022) [2026] UGHCCD 81 (29 January 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.