Exim Bank (Uganda) Ltd v Westwinds Trading C.O Matco Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2025)
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
Where a suit is dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules for non-appearance of the plaintiff, Order 9 rule 23(1) precludes the plaintiff from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. The proper remedy is to apply for reinstatement of the dismissed suit. A fresh suit filed in contravention of Order 9 rule 23(1) is incompetent and must be dismissed.
Outcome
Civil Suit No. 1250 of 2024 dismissed for being incompetent having been filed contrary to Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Facts
The Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 629 of 2022 against the Applicant bank alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligent transfer of USD 95,841. On 7 December 2023, that suit was dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 for non-appearance of the Respondent when the matter was called for hearing. Instead of applying for reinstatement of the dismissed suit, the Respondent filed a fresh suit, Civil Suit No. 1250 of 2024, containing the same facts and allegations. The Applicant applied to strike out the fresh suit on grounds that it was filed contrary to Order 9 rule 23(1), which precludes a plaintiff from bringing a fresh suit after dismissal under Order 9 rule 22.
Issues
- Whether Civil Suit No. 1250 of 2024 discloses a reasonable cause of action.
- Whether there are any remedies available to the parties.
Orders
- Civil Suit No. 1250 of 2024 is dismissed.
- Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (4)
- Chiman Bhai R. Patel v Abid Alam and Sugar and Allied Industries Limited (HCMA No. 1595 of 2022)
- Hon. Issa Kikungwe & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 30 of 2006)
- Patrick Mayanja v Uganda National Roads Authority (Civil Suit No. 39 of 2016)
- Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor [1982] HCB 11
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.