Wakilii

Kavuma Nakate Rebecca v Musoke Elina Aidah [2026] UGHCLD 228

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 reinstate a miscellaneous application dismissed for non-attendance
Decision
Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-00-LD-MA-2831 of 2024 reinstated for hearing on its merits, with no order as to costs

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 held that reinstatement of proceedings dismissed for non-attendance is discretionary and turns on whether the applicant shows sufficient cause on the facts of each case. Counsel's inadvertent failure to be present when the matter was called, absent evidence of deliberate absence or abandonment, amounted to sufficient cause; prejudice consisting merely of further participation and legal expense is compensable by costs. An affidavit is not struck out for every breach of Order 19 rule 3 where defects are severable and cause no serious prejudice. An objection to the competence of the application sought to be reinstated is premature and reserved for the court hearing that application. Reinstatement granted, but costs refused because of the applicant's and counsel's inaction.

Outcome

Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-00-LD-MA-2831 of 2024 reinstated for hearing on its merits, with no order as to costs

Facts

Judgment in a civil suit before the Chief Magistrate's Court at Makindye was entered in favour of the applicant. The respondent appealed to the High Court, where an ex parte judgment was entered in the appeal. Contending that she had not been heard, the applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-00-LD-MA-2831 of 2024 seeking to set aside the ex parte judgment and to have the appeal heard inter partes. That application had been heard on 11 September 2025 and adjourned, in the presence of the applicant and her counsel, to 17 October 2025 at 12:00pm. On 17 October 2025 neither the applicant nor her counsel was present when the matter was called, and the respondent successfully applied for dismissal for non-attendance. The applicant then applied to reinstate the dismissed application, explaining that counsel had inadvertently failed to realise that the matter had already been called. The respondent opposed, alleging that the affidavit in support breached Order 19 rule 3, that the application sought to be reinstated had been filed by advocates without instructions while other advocates remained on record, that the default was negligence, and that reinstatement would occasion further legal expense.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's supporting affidavit was argumentative and hearsay contrary to Order 19 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and should be struck out.
  2. Whether the competence of the application sought to be reinstated (allegedly filed by advocates without instructions) could be determined in the reinstatement application.
  3. Whether the applicant established sufficient cause for the reinstatement of Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-00-LD-MA-2831 of 2024, dismissed for non-attendance.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-00-LD-MA-2831 of 2024 is hereby reinstated.
  • There is no order for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavits — Order 19 rule 3 Civil Procedure Rules — Argumentative and hearsay averments — When striking out is warranted
Not every infraction of Order 19 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules renders an affidavit incurably defective; striking out is a drastic remedy and where the offending averments are severable or do not go to the root of the affidavit, the court should determine the application on its merits.
Reinstatement of proceedings dismissed for non-attendance — Sufficient cause — Exercise of judicial discretion
The jurisdiction to reinstate proceedings dismissed for non-attendance is discretionary and must be exercised on reason and established principle; the applicant bears the burden of showing sufficient cause, and whether sufficient cause exists depends on the explanation offered, the conduct of the parties, the prejudice likely to each side and the interests of justice, there being no inflexible rule.
Reinstatement — Mistake or inadvertence of counsel — Limits of the principle
The mistake or inadvertence of counsel ought not ordinarily to be visited upon an innocent litigant, but the principle is not absolute: the party must show that the default arose from a genuine and excusable mistake rather than from indifference, inaction or deliberate disregard of the court process.
Preliminary objections — Prematurity — Competence of the application sought to be reinstated
An objection challenging the competence or legality of the very application whose reinstatement is sought is premature in reinstatement proceedings; determining it would pre-empt an issue properly arising in the reinstated application, and it is reserved for the court seized of that application.
Reinstatement — Prejudice to the opposing party — Prolonged litigation and further legal expense
The fact that reinstatement prolongs litigation and requires the opposing party to incur further legal expense is not prejudice of a kind that justifies denying a litigant the opportunity to be heard, such inconvenience being capable of compensation by an award of costs.
Costs — Discretion to deny costs to a successful applicant whose own default occasioned the proceedings
A successful applicant may be denied costs where the application was rendered necessary by the inaction of the applicant and her counsel in failing to appear at a hearing date of which both were aware.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Allan S. Kirumira v Kagaba Peter and 17 Others (Civil Revision No. 5 of 2023)
  • Bank One Ltd v Simbamanyo Estates Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) HCB 11
  • Electoral Commission and Another v Dirisa Ssemanda and 6 Others (Election Petition Application No. 2 of 2018)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1992)
  • Muzafaru Matovu v Yiga Deziderio (Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2023)
  • Sylvia Kirabo Kadhaya v Ahmed Bamweyana (Miscellaneous Application No. 472 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kavuma Nakate Rebecca v Musoke Elina Aidah [2026] UGHCLD 228 (9 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.