Kigozi andrew v Mukasa Ronald (Miscellaneous Application No. 1516 of 2022)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

An appeal dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 43 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules cannot be reinstated by the same court unless special circumstances exist warranting exercise of inherent powers under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 33 of the Judicature Act. Where an applicant failed to take essential steps to prosecute an appeal over nearly four years and was absent on multiple hearing dates, no special circumstances exist to justify reinstatement.

Outcome

Application to reinstate appeal dismissed; original dismissal order stands

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2018 on 8 October 2018 arising from a decision refusing to add him as a defendant in Civil Suit No. 064 of 2016 pending before the Chief Magistrate's Court of Makindye. After filing the appeal, the applicant failed to take necessary steps to prosecute it. On 14 April 2021, the respondent applied for dismissal but the court declined to allow the Deputy Registrar to call for the lower court file. The appeal was adjourned to 11 February 2022, then to 17 March 2022 in the presence of applicant's counsel. On 17 March 2022, both parties were absent. The matter was adjourned to 22 June 2022. On 22 June 2022, the applicant and his lawyer were absent and the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The applicant then brought this application seeking to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the order dismissing Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2018 should be set aside and the appeal reinstated and heard on its merits.
2. Whether special circumstances exist for the Court to exercise its inherent power to reinstate an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Applicant to pay costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 52 rules 1 & 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 31
• Judicature Act s.17

Cases cited (2)

• Gold Beverages (U) Ltd v Muhangura Kenneth and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 674 of 2019)
• Rawal v The Mombasa Hardware Ltd [1968] EA 392

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Were and Another v Kakande and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 782 of 2023)

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