Wakilii

Iran -Uganda Trade and Investment Promotional Services Limited v Uganda Investment Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 497 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 154 · 2022 Application Granted 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. 685 of 2017
Decision
Dismissal order set aside; suit reinstated for hearing on 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 High Court set aside the dismissal order of Civil Suit No. 685 of 2017 and reinstated the suit for hearing on merits. The respondent's affidavit in reply was struck out for being filed 23 days after service, exceeding the mandatory 15-day period, leaving the application unchallenged. The court found no evidence that the applicant was served with the hearing notice for the date on which the suit was dismissed in the absence of all parties.

Outcome

Dismissal order set aside; suit reinstated for hearing on merits

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 685 of 2017 seeking declarations and orders concerning land at Kyadondo Block 234 Plot 5020, Namanve. The applicant claimed possession and substantial investment in developing the land. On 10 January 2022, the suit was dismissed in the absence of all parties. The applicant contended it was not served with the hearing notice for that date. The suit had been pending since April 2017, with a temporary injunction granted in January 2018. The matter was referred to mediation in July 2020, with sessions held in August and September 2020. The applicant appeared for one mediation session where it was agreed to apply for a lease for alternative land. The court had directed parties to file trial bundles and witness statements by 15 October 2021 for hearing on 10 January 2022, but the applicant did not comply or appear.

Issues

  1. Whether the order dismissing H.C.C.S No. 685 of 2017 should be set aside and the suit set down for hearing on its merits.

Orders

  • The respondent's affidavit in reply is struck out for late filing.
  • The application is granted.
  • The order dismissing H.C.C.S No. 685 of 2017 is set aside.
  • The suit is set down for hearing on its merits.
  • Costs of this application are in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Time Limits for Filing
An affidavit in reply, like a written statement of defence, must be filed within 15 days of service of the application. Where a delay is not accounted for, the length of delay is immaterial; there must always be an explanation for the period of delay. An affidavit in reply filed belatedly without explanation will be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Effect of Striking Out Affidavit in Reply
Where an affidavit in reply is struck out for late filing, the application remains unchallenged. Every allegation in an affidavit, if not specifically or by necessary implication denied by the opposite party, shall be taken to be admitted.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Dismissal Orders — Requirements under Order 9 Rule 18
Under Order 9 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where a suit is dismissed for non-appearance, the plaintiff may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside. The court shall set aside the dismissal if the plaintiff satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance. Absence of evidence that a party was served with a hearing notice constitutes sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Civil Procedure — Reinstatement of Dismissed Suits — Interest of Justice
Where a suit was dismissed in the absence of all parties and reinstatement will not prejudice the respondent but instead gives the parties an opportunity to prove their rights so that the case is substantially determined, the court will exercise its discretion to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the suit for hearing on merits.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Uganda Development Bank Ltd v Ringa Enterprises Co Ltd & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 788 of 2017)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2010)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Prof Oloka Onyango & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Iran_-Uganda_Trade_and_Investment_Promotional_Services_Limited_v_Uganda_Investment_Authority_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._497_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_154_(12_August_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.