Kakande Godfrey and Others v Kawooya Christopher and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2147 of 2024)
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
Application to set aside dismissal dismissed. The court held that applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for their absence when the suit was dismissed on 29th June 2022. Although counsel wrote requesting a hearing date in September 2021, they failed to follow up after court fixed the matter, demonstrating lack of interest. A consent agreement between advocates does not amount to sufficient cause to set aside a court dismissal under Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Outcome
Application dismissed; Civil Suit No. 23 of 2016 remains dismissed
Facts
On 19th January 2016, the applicants filed Civil Suit No. 23 of 2016 seeking to recover land comprised in Kibuga Block 27 plot 259. The matter proceeded through mediation and multiple adjournments between 2017 and 2020. On 4th November 2020, the trial judge gave the matter a last adjournment to 7th June 2021, which fell during COVID lockdown. Applicants' counsel wrote to court on 15th September 2021 requesting a hearing date. Court fixed the matter for 29th June 2022. On that date, only the 2nd respondent's counsel appeared and the suit was dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules with costs to the 2nd defendant. Applicants then brought this application seeking to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the suit. When the application came up for hearing, both counsel filed a consent to set aside the dismissal, but the court declined to endorse it.
Issues
- Whether the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 23 of 2016 should be set aside.
- Whether the applicants were prevented by sufficient cause from attending the hearing on 29th June 2022.
- Whether a consent between advocates constitutes sufficient cause to set aside a dismissal under Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Orders
- Application for setting aside the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 23 of 2016 dismissed.
- No order as to costs since counsel for the 2nd respondent did not file an affidavit in reply as directed by court.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.