Wakilii

Hajjati Nakijjoba Mariam v Kampala Capital City Authority [2026] UGHCLD 226

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to set aside dismissal for want of prosecution and reinstate a civil suit
Decision
Dismissal order set aside and Civil Suit No. 1135 of 2019 reinstated for hearing on its 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

The Court held that its inherent jurisdiction under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act permits setting aside its own order dismissing a suit for want of prosecution where sufficient cause is shown on a balance of probabilities. Sufficient cause depends on the explanation for the default, the parties' conduct, length of delay, prejudice and the interests of justice; mere passage of time is not inordinate delay if satisfactorily explained. Where inactivity resulted from a court-sanctioned mediation which both parties continued to pursue (including a valuation and partial settlement) in ignorance of the dismissal, the default was neither deliberate nor contumelious. The dismissal was set aside and the suit reinstated for hearing on the merits.

Outcome

Dismissal order set aside and Civil Suit No. 1135 of 2019 reinstated for hearing on its merits

Facts

The applicant sued Kampala Capital City Authority in Civil Suit No. 1135 of 2019, seeking a declaration of trespass upon her kibanja at Kibuga Block 11 Plot 576, Ndeeba, together with damages and costs. The respondent filed a defence and then requested amicable settlement, and the Court referred the matter to mediation. Mediation continued over an extended period, disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and prolonged by the respondent's referral of the claim to the Chief Government Valuer. Following the valuation report, the respondent invited the applicant by letter of 25th April 2025 to resume negotiations, which culminated in a partial settlement under which the respondent paid the applicant UGX 43,680,000 as compensation for demolished houses; the remaining aspects of the claim were unresolved. Unknown to both parties, the suit had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 22nd February 2023. The dismissal came to light when the applicant's advocates sought the Court's guidance on the outstanding claim, and the applicant then applied to set aside the dismissal. The respondent objected that the dismissal order had not been annexed and that a delay of about three years showed abandonment; the order was in fact annexed as Annexure "H".

Issues

  1. Whether the application was incompetent for failure to annex the dismissal order sought to be set aside.
  2. Whether the applicant established sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the order dismissing Civil Suit No. 1135 of 2019 for want of prosecution and reinstating the suit.

Orders

  • The order made on 22nd February 2023 dismissing High Court Civil Suit No. 1135 of 2019 for want of prosecution under Order 17 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules is set aside.
  • High Court Civil Suit No. 1135 of 2019 is reinstated for hearing and determination on its merits.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of High Court Civil Suit No. 1135 of 2019.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Inherent Jurisdiction to Set Aside under Civil Procedure Act s.98
The High Court's jurisdiction to set aside its own order dismissing a suit for want of prosecution derives from the inherent powers preserved by section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that discretion, though wide, must be exercised judicially upon established principles and for the ends of justice.
Civil Procedure — Reinstatement of Suit — Meaning of "Sufficient Cause"
Sufficient cause for reinstating a suit dismissed for want of prosecution is established where the applicant offers a reasonable, credible and bona fide explanation showing that the default was neither deliberate nor contumelious, the assessment depending on the explanation for the default, the conduct of the parties, the length of delay, prejudice to the opposing party and the interests of justice.
Civil Procedure — Delay — Mere Passage of Time Not Inordinate Delay
The mere passage of time does not of itself amount to inordinate delay; the court must consider whether the whole period of delay has been satisfactorily explained, and delay occasioned by a court-sanctioned mediation, a valuation process and settlement negotiations of which both parties were active participants may be excused.
Civil Procedure — Mediation — Effect of Parties' Continued Settlement Conduct After Dismissal
Where a respondent itself proposes and continues to participate in mediation, procures a valuation and implements a partial settlement after a dismissal order has been made, its conduct supports an applicant's assertion that both parties believed the suit was subsisting and negates an allegation that the applicant abandoned the claim.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Objection Contradicted by the Record
A preliminary objection that an application is incompetent for failure to annex the order sought to be set aside fails where the record shows the order was in fact annexed to the supporting affidavit.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hajjati Nakijjoba Mariam v Kampala Capital City Authority [2026] UGHCLD 226 (17 July 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.