Wakilii

Hajji Iddi Lubyayi Kisiki v Nalumansi Immaculate and Others (Miscellaneous Application 1428 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 340 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of an order reinstating a dismissed civil suit
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondents

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 a suit dismissed under Order 9 Rule 22 for non-appearance of the plaintiff does not create a final decree and can be reinstated by the dismissing court under Order 9 Rule 23. Similarly, dismissal under Section 17(2) of the Judicature Act for abuse of court process is not a final decree and can be set aside through the court's inherent powers. The application for review was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

Civil Suit No. 115 of 2012 was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 22 and Section 17(2) of the Judicature Act. The respondents filed Miscellaneous Application No. 939 of 2021 for reinstatement of the suit, which the court allowed. The applicant, dissatisfied with the reinstatement order, filed this application for review arguing that the court had no jurisdiction to reinstate a suit dismissed under Section 17(2) of the Judicature Act, that the suit was reinstated on a different application, and that the advocates who appeared did not have instructions. Only one ground was argued at the hearing: that there was an error apparent on the face of the record.

Issues

  1. Whether a suit dismissed under Order 9 Rule 22 and Section 17(2) of the Judicature Act can be reinstated by the dismissing court.
  2. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order reinstating Civil Suit No. 115 of 2012.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be an evident error which does not require extensive argument to show its incorrectness. It must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on record. The error may be one of fact but is not limited to matters of fact and includes error of law.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal of Suit — Dismissal for Non-Appearance under Order 9 Rule 22 — Reinstatement
A dismissal under Order 9 Rule 22 for non-appearance of the plaintiff does not create a final decree. The remedy is an application for reinstatement under Order 9 Rule 23, and the dismissing court has jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal upon the plaintiff satisfying the court that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal of Suit — Distinction Between Dismissal for Non-Appearance and Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Dismissal for non-appearance under Order 9 Rule 22 should not be confused with dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 17. Whereas dismissal for want of prosecution creates a final decree of court with remedy lying only in appeal or fresh suit under Order 17 Rule 5(2), dismissal for non-appearance is not a final decree and can be set aside by the dismissing court.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal under Section 17(2) Judicature Act — Inherent Powers of Court — Reinstatement
Dismissal of a suit for abuse of court process under Section 17(2) of the Judicature Act is premised on the inherent powers of the court and does not create a final decree. The remedy for such dismissal equally lies in the inherent powers of the court, and the dismissing court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for reinstatement.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (2)

  • FX Mubuuke v UHB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hajji_Iddi_Lubyayi_Kisiki_v_Nalumansi_Immaculate_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_1428_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_340_(6_October_2022)
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.