Goldmine Finance Ltd v Joseph Kasirye Lwanga and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 0109 of 2026)

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.

Holding

The court held that an applicant's reasonable reliance on official court communication from a clerk that the judge would be indisposed on the hearing date constitutes sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside a dismissal for non-appearance. Where a party's absence results from misleading information provided by a court officer rather than contumacious neglect, and the party demonstrates diligence by rushing to court upon learning of the error, the interests of substantive justice require reinstatement of the suit for hearing on its merits.

Outcome

Dismissal set aside, suit reinstated and transferred to Chief Magistrates Court for hearing on merits

Facts

Goldmine Finance Ltd instituted Civil Suit No. 512 of 2023 against Joseph Kasirye Lwanga and Mubiru Derick Eria for recovery of a loan facility totaling UGX 124,903,210. The suit was scheduled for hearing on 14 January 2026. On 9 January 2026, the applicant's counsel was contacted by a court clerk named Beatrice who indicated that the presiding judge would be indisposed on the scheduled hearing date. The clerk suggested an earlier hearing for 12 January, but the applicant's key witness was unavailable on short notice. Based on the official communication regarding the judge's absence, the applicant reasonably believed no attendance was required on the 14th. On the morning of 14 January 2026 at approximately 11:21 AM, counsel unexpectedly learned that the judge had actually reported for duty. The deponent rushed to court, arriving by 11:40 AM, but was told to wait while staff finished breakfast. Around midday, he was informed that the judge had already dismissed the suit for non-appearance under Order 9 Rule 17. The respondents were also absent on the same date. The applicant applied to set aside the dismissal, contending that the failure to appear was occasioned by an honest and genuine mistake resulting from misleading information provided by a court officer.

Issues

1. Whether there is sufficient cause for this Honourable Court to exercise its discretion to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the suit.

Orders

• The Order dismissing Civil Suit No. 512 of 2023 on the 14th day of January 2026 for non-appearance is hereby set aside.
• Civil Suit No. 512 of 2023 is hereby reinstated to be heard on its merits.
• Civil Suit No. 512 of 2023 is hereby transferred to the Chief Magistrates Court in light of the Magistrates Courts (Amendment) Act no. 6 of 2026 which places the pecuniary value of the suit outside the jurisdiction of this court.
• The costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 28(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap 16 s.17(2)(c)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 17
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 18
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 Rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 16 Rule 10
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rules 1, 2, and 3
• Magistrates Courts (Amendment) Act No. 6 of 2026

Cases cited (7)

• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (2 E.A. 22)
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (SCCA No. 23 of 1999)
• Sebei District Administration v Gasyali (EA 300)
• National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods (CA Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
• Kakooza George Wilberforce v Ngamba William & 3 Others ([UGHC 920])
• Kakooza Juma & Anor v Bwanika Edward Lugemwa & 2 Others ([UGHC 36])
• Mawejje Ernest v Yaourtoglou Jacqueline Namirembe ([UGCommC 344])

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