Wakilii

Jane Kazahuura Nduhukira v Nyamurasha Moses and Others [2026] UGCOMMC 371

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 review and set aside an order declaring a civil suit abated
Decision
Application for review granted; the finding of abatement of High Court Civil Suit No. 1009 of 2025 found to be an error apparent on the record, with costs to the applicant

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 considered whether an application to review an order declaring a civil suit abated under Order XIA disclosed grounds for review. It held that to 'take out' summons for directions requires only preparing and filing them on the record within the prescribed period; fixing the hearing date is the court's duty and registry delay cannot be visited on the litigant. Since the summons had been filed within time, declaring the suit abated was an error apparent on the face of the record. The court further held that the proper remedy for an erroneous abatement is review or appeal, not a fresh suit, and that tampering with court records cannot be found without cogent evidence. The application was granted with costs to the applicant.

Outcome

Application for review granted; the finding of abatement of High Court Civil Suit No. 1009 of 2025 found to be an error apparent on the record, with costs to the applicant

Facts

The applicant filed High Court Civil Suit No. 1009 of 2025 against the respondents. The 2nd respondent filed its written statement of defence, and the applicant filed a reply, closing pleadings by 19 September 2025. The applicant filed summons for directions on 24 September 2025, but the Registrar had not fixed them for hearing. On 13 November 2025 the 2nd respondent's advocates applied by letter for the suit to be declared abated for failure to take out summons for directions under Order XIA. On 24 November 2025 the court declared the suit abated. The order was endorsed/extracted in January 2026. The status on ECCMIS later changed from 'abated' to 'under hearing', and the matter proceeded to mediation. The applicant filed this application for review on 26 March 2026, contending the summons had been duly filed within time and any delay in fixing them was an administrative lapse of the court. On perusing the record, the court established the summons for directions were filed on 24 September 2025 within the prescribed period.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises grounds for review of the order declaring High Court Civil Suit No. 1009 of 2025 abated, and for reinstatement of the suit.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Costs of the application to be paid by the 2nd respondent to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
An error apparent on the face of the record is a self-evident error that stares one in the face and admits of no two opinions, requiring no extraneous matter or long-drawn process of reasoning to establish; only such an error grounds a review under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Meaning of 'Taking Out' under Order XIA
To 'take out' summons for directions under Order XIA rule 1(2) requires the plaintiff only to prepare and file the summons on the court record within the prescribed 28 days; it does not require fixing the hearing date, which is the responsibility of the court, and any registry delay in fixing the summons cannot be attributed to the litigant.
Civil Procedure — Abatement — Proper Remedy for an Erroneous Finding
A finding that a suit has abated culminates in an order or decree which may be challenged by appeal or, where the statutory grounds exist, by review; the institution of a fresh suit is appropriate only where the party accepts the abatement, not where the party contends the finding of abatement was itself erroneous.
Civil Procedure — Review — Distinction from Appeal
Review does not lie to correct a court's erroneous exposition or misconstruction of the law, nor because another judge might have taken a different view; such matters are grounds for appeal, and review confined to self-evident errors avoids the court sitting on appeal against its own judgment.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Court Records (ECCMIS) — Allegation of Tampering
A court cannot find that electronic court records were tampered with absent cogent evidence of unauthorised access to or manipulation of the system; a change in a suit's recorded status is plausibly explained by the court's own correction of an erroneous entry.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (16)

  • Mohamed Alibhai v W.E. Bukenya Mukasa and Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Kagimu and 7 Others v Sekatawa and 12 Others (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25 of 2020)
  • Kasolo Robins Ellis v Julius Joseph (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 3 of 2023)
  • Stephen Mabosi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 8 of 1996)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd [1999] UGCA 11
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] UGSC 3
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga and James Laki Kamoga (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 8 of 2004)
  • Fam International Ltd and Another v Muhammed Hamid (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1993)
  • Mitter Investments Limited v East African Portland Cement Co. Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 534 of 2012)
  • Attorney General of Gambia v. N'jie AC 617 at 634
  • Edison Kanyabwere v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • F.X Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Kishor Kumar Dhanji v Ndeffo Limited (Civil Case No. 170 of 2009)
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates v Kogo [2001] 1 EA 173
  • Igga Godfrey and Others v The Registered Trustees of Pentecostal Assemblies of God and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2016)
  • National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau (Civil Appeal No. 211 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jane Kazahuura Nduhukira v Nyamurasha Moses and Others [2026] UGCOMMC 371 (31 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.