Wakilii

Kityo Galiwango Michael v Betty Galiwango Nakato Kyobilla and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1151 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 210 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal order and reinstate civil suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Decision
Civil Suit No. 1082 of 2022 reinstated for hearing on the merits

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

Held that a mistaken belief by counsel's legal clerk that the matter had been transferred to Wakiso High Court Circuit constituted sufficient cause for the applicant's non-appearance. The court applied the principle that mistakes or negligence on the part of counsel should not be visited upon the litigant. The application was filed three days after dismissal and the applicant had consistently attended court previously, demonstrating genuine interest. Application allowed and suit reinstated.

Outcome

Civil Suit No. 1082 of 2022 reinstated for hearing on the merits

Facts

Civil Suit No. 1082 of 2022 was dismissed on 12 May 2025 under Order 9 rule 22 for non-appearance of counsel and the plaintiff when the matter was called for hearing. The applicant's legal clerk had received information in April 2025 about cases being transferred to Wakiso and Entebbe High Court Circuits. The clerk mistakenly believed that this suit had been transferred to Wakiso Circuit and informed counsel accordingly. The applicant contacted his counsel on 9 May 2025 to inquire about the hearing date and was informed by a lawyer in the firm that the matter had been transferred. Neither the applicant nor counsel attended on 12 May 2025. The applicant filed this application for reinstatement on 15 May 2025, three days after dismissal. The respondents opposed, arguing that the suit land falls outside Wakiso jurisdiction, that the applicant had been present at the previous adjournment on 3 September 2024, and that no sufficient reason was provided for non-appearance.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause to warrant the reinstatement of Civil Suit No. 1082 of 2022.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Civil Suit No. 1082 of 2022 reinstated.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reinstatement of Dismissed Suits — Sufficient Cause — Mistake of Counsel
A mistake, negligence, oversight or error on the part of counsel should not be visited upon the litigant and constitutes sufficient cause entitling the trial judge to exercise discretion to reinstate a dismissed suit so that the matter is considered on its merits.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Competence of Deponent — Non-Party Affidavits
Affidavits sworn representatively by non-parties without formal recognized agent status under Order 3 or explicit authorization are invalid. A deponent acting representatively must be a recognized agent or an advocate. Order 3 and Order 19 are not mutually exclusive and must be read together.
Civil Procedure — Reinstatement Applications — Factors to Consider — Promptness and Prior Conduct
In determining whether to reinstate a dismissed suit, the court considers the promptness of the application, the applicant's genuine intent to continue with the hearing, the complexity of the case, and the applicant's prior conduct in attending court proceedings. Consistent prior attendance and prompt filing of the reinstatement application are indicative of genuine interest and controvert allegations of dilatory conduct.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kayanja v Rulinda and Another (Election Appeal No. 30 of 2021)
  • Lukwajju v Mucunguzi (Miscellaneous Application No. 862 of 2011)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 044/2021
  • John Sanyo Katuramu and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2006)
  • National Insurance Corporation v Mugenyi & Company Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1984)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kityo_Galiwango_Michael_v_Betty_Galiwango_Nakato_Kyobilla_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1151_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_210_(27_August_2025)
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.