Wakilii

Mark Hardware Plumbing & Electrical (U) Ltd and Bilal Faruk Zaveri v Hard Steel Limited (Miscellaneous Application 14 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 997 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for reinstatement of Miscellaneous Application No. 04 of 2024 which had been dismissed under Order 9 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Application for reinstatement dismissed; applicants to bear 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 court held that an application for reinstatement of a dismissed application under Order 9 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the applicant to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance with credible evidence. Where applicants filed multiple applications in the same matter and failed to appear to prosecute them, and the underlying application was filed three years after the original default with no reasonable explanation, the pattern demonstrates deliberate inaction rather than sufficient cause. The application for reinstatement was dismissed as lacking merit and constituting a delaying tactic.

Outcome

Application for reinstatement dismissed; applicants to bear costs

Facts

The applicants were defendants in Civil Suit No. 23 of 2021 and failed to file a Written Statement of Defence, resulting in a default judgment on 21 July 2021. Between 2021 and 2024, the applicants filed five applications: Misc. App. Nos. 7, 72, 248, and 186 of 2021, and Misc. App. No. 4 of 2024. Most were dismissed for non-appearance; one was withdrawn. Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2024 was filed in January 2024, three years after the default judgment, when the respondent's lawyers attempted execution. On 5 June 2024, when Misc. App. No. 4 of 2024 came up for hearing, neither the applicants nor their counsel appeared. The application was dismissed under Order 9 rule 17 at 10:17 am. The applicants then filed the present application on 21 June 2024, sixteen days later, seeking reinstatement. They claimed their counsel and the second applicant left Mbale at 6:00 am but were delayed by a traffic checkpoint in Jinja and arrived fifteen minutes after the scheduled time.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause for setting aside the dismissal in Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2024 and having the same reinstated?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Non-Appearance — Order 9 Rule 17 CPR — Reinstatement Requirements
An application to reinstate a matter dismissed under Order 9 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules for non-appearance requires the applicant to demonstrate: (a) sufficient cause for non-appearance; (b) filing the application within a reasonable time; (c) an affidavit in support explaining the absence; and (d) serious intent to prosecute or defend the case.
Civil Procedure — Sufficient Cause — Interpretation and Application
Sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules must relate to the inability or failure to take a particular step due to circumstances beyond the party's control and not deliberate inaction or indifference. The applicant must show that the cause was not due to negligence or indifference, and mere allegation is not enough; it must be backed by evidence.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Repeated Filing of Applications Without Appearance
Where applicants have filed multiple applications arising from the same matter and consistently failed to appear to prosecute them, and the latest application is filed years after the original default when execution is attempted, such conduct demonstrates deliberate inaction and constitutes a delaying tactic and abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (14)

  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Stanbic Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0781 of 2008)
  • The Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar-es-Salaam v The Chairman Bunju Village Government & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2006)
  • John W Katende & Anor v Ssendagire Nsibambi & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1189 of 2022)
  • National Insurance Corporation v Mugenyi & Co. Advocates [1987] HCB 28
  • Saggu v Roadmaster Cycles M Ltd [2002] 1 EA 258
  • Salem Ahmed Hassan Zaidi v Farjud Hussein Humeldan [1960] 1 EA 92
  • DFCU Bank Ltd & 3 others v MP Electronics Ltd & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 0124 of 2024)
  • Balaba Robinah & Mutanda Michael v. Hussein Mohamad & Registrar Land Registration
  • Amrit Goyal v Harichand Goyal & 3 others (Civil Suit No. 709 of 2011)
  • Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd (1968) 1 ALL ER 543
  • Attorney General v Florence Baliraine [1994] I ALR 70
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General [1988-1990] HCB 11
  • Festo Muganga v Stanbic Bank U Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 103 of 2010)
  • Nakiriide Sarah v Nambooze Grace (High Court Civil Appeal M. 115 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mark Hardware Plumbing & Electrical (U) Ltd and Bilal Faruk Zaveri v Hard Steel Limited (Miscellaneous Application 14 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 997 (3 Augu
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.