Wakilii

Kereni v Kidega and 2 Others (Kereni v Kidega and 2 Others)

High Court · [1996] UGHC 14 · 1996 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit dismissed for failure to prosecute after adjournment application refused
Decision
Suit dismissed for failure to prosecute

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

Court dismissed plaintiff's application for adjournment where plaintiff sought postponement because he was too busy to leave work and witnesses failed to appear without explanation. Held that being too busy at work is not sufficient cause under O.15 r.1 CPR, and failure of witnesses to appear without showing cause for non-attendance is also insufficient. Suit dismissed under O.9 r.19 with costs to 2nd and 3rd defendants.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for failure to prosecute

Facts

Plaintiff Kereni Bwomono brought a civil suit against three defendants. When the case was called for hearing on 26 April 1996, counsel for the plaintiff sought adjournment on grounds that the plaintiff, an employee in the President's Office in charge of a Communication Section, could not leave work as he was alone in that section with his colleague being sick. Additionally, plaintiff's other witnesses from Kitgum did not appear though notified. The 2nd defendant's counsel opposed the application, arguing insufficient cause was shown and that court could not be conducted at the convenience of an individual.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient cause was shown to justify adjournment of the hearing.

Orders

  • Application for adjournment dismissed.
  • Suit dismissed under Order 9 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Costs awarded to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Adjournment — Sufficient Cause
Being too busy at one's place of work is not sufficient cause to justify grant of adjournment under Order 15 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, otherwise no court work would progress as everybody would be too busy at their respective place of work.
Civil Procedure — Adjournment — Failure of Witnesses to Appear
Failure of witnesses to appear though notified is not sufficient cause to justify grant of adjournment without knowing the cause of the failure.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal of Suit — Non-Appearance
Where an applicant fails to show sufficient cause for adjournment under Order 15 rule 1 CPR, the suit may be dismissed under Order 9 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to prosecute.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.15 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.19

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kereni v Kidega and 2 Others (Kereni v Kidega and 2 Others) [1996] UGHC 14 (26 April 1996)
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.