Wakilii

Masaba & 3 Others v Makheti & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 131 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 8 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal of civil appeal for non-appearance
Decision
Application to reinstate dismissed appeal refused; dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 174 of 2018 stands

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 dismissed an application to reinstate a dismissed appeal, holding that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause. The court found that medical evidence post-dated the dismissal by over a year, the other co-appellants provided no explanation for their non-appearance, and no evidence was presented of legal representation. The court ruled that an affidavit in reply contains evidence rather than pleadings and must be filed within a reasonable time before the hearing, not necessarily within 15 days.

Outcome

Application to reinstate dismissed appeal refused; dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 174 of 2018 stands

Facts

The respondents successfully sued the applicants in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Bubulo for recovery of land. The applicants filed Civil Appeal No. 174 of 2018, which was dismissed for non-appearance on 13 June 2022. The applicants filed this application seeking to set aside the dismissal, claiming that the 1st applicant was hospitalised and that their lawyer failed to follow up on the appeal. The medical evidence provided was dated 5 April 2023, over a year after the dismissal. No evidence was produced to show that counsel had been engaged or that the 1st applicant had authority to represent his co-appellants. The other three co-appellants offered no explanation for their non-appearance.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in reply ought to be struck out for being filed outside the 15-day period
  2. Whether there is sufficient cause that warrants setting aside the dismissal order and reinstatement of Civil Appeal No. 174 of 2018

Orders

  • Preliminary objection to the affidavit in reply overruled
  • Issue No. 1 answered in the negative — affidavit in reply not struck out
  • Application dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Timelines for Filing Affidavit in Reply
An affidavit in reply presents evidence on oath and is not a pleading in the strict sense. Time constraints applicable to written statements of defence do not apply to affidavits. An affidavit in reply should be filed within a reasonable time before the hearing date to allow the adverse party a fair opportunity to respond.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Reinstatement After Dismissal for Non-Appearance — Sufficient Cause
Under Order 43 rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an appeal dismissed for non-appearance may be readmitted where the appellant proves he or she was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. Sufficient cause means the party did not act negligently and demonstrated bona fides. Medical evidence dated over a year after the dismissal, absence of all co-appellants without explanation, and lack of proof that counsel was engaged do not constitute sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Multiple Parties — Authority to Represent Co-Litigants
Where an appeal involves multiple appellants, the absence or illness of one appellant does not excuse the failure of the other co-appellants to prosecute the appeal. The absent appellant must provide evidence of authority from co-appellants to represent them, and the co-appellants must explain their own non-appearance.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Stop And See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Dr Lam Lagoro James v Muni University (Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 7 of 2016)
  • Parimal versus Veena @ Bharti Civil Appeal No.1467 of 2011
  • James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises Ltd v Kampala City Council and Kampala District Land Board (Civil Application No. 9 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Masaba & 3 Others v Makheti & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 131 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 8 (17 January 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.