Wakilii

Mirembe Harriet v Taabuabu and Others (Miscellaneous Application 311 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1524 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Deputy Registrar's order abating Civil Suit No. 67 of 2022 for failure to take out summons for directions
Decision
Application for review dismissed; abatement order of Civil Suit No. 67 of 2022 stands

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the application for review of the Deputy Registrar's order abating Civil Suit No. 67 of 2022. The court held that a judge has supervisory jurisdiction to review a registrar's decision under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, but found no error apparent on the face of the record. The plaintiff's failure to take out summons for directions within the prescribed time was not excused by alleged mediation (for which there was insufficient evidence on record), by a preliminary objection raised in the defence, or by a consent entered with some defendants. The abatement order was properly made and the application was dismissed with costs to the 4th and 5th respondents.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; abatement order of Civil Suit No. 67 of 2022 stands

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 67 of 2022 seeking a declaration of ownership of six acres of land. The 4th and 5th respondents filed a written statement of defence on 20 December 2022. The applicant also filed an application for temporary injunction which was granted on 9 February 2023. Some defendants (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th) entered into a consent with the applicant on 7 February 2023. The applicant did not take out summons for directions within the prescribed 28 days after close of pleadings. On 28 September 2023, the 4th and 5th respondents applied for the suit to abate for failure to take out summons for directions. The Deputy Registrar granted the application and abated the suit on 17 October 2023 with costs against the applicant. The applicant then filed this application for review on 30 November 2023, arguing that the abatement was in error because the matter had been referred to mediation, a preliminary objection had been raised, and the defence had not been properly served.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of the abatement order entered on 17 October 2023 in Civil Suit No. 67 of 2022
  2. Whether the abatement of Civil Suit No. 67 of 2022 was entered in error and if so, whether the abatement order ought to be reviewed and set aside

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 4th and 5th respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Registrar's Decision — Jurisdiction of High Court Judge
A High Court judge has supervisory jurisdiction to review, vary or discharge a registrar's decision under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, as registrars exercise delegated judicial authority of the High Court. The proper recourse against a registrar's decision is a miscellaneous application under Order 50 rule 8, not strictly an appeal or review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act or Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Duty of Plaintiff After Close of Pleadings
Under Order 12 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where pleadings have been closed, the plaintiff must take out summons for directions within 21 days from the date of close of pleadings. Failure to do so without sufficient cause may result in the suit being listed for dismissal under Order 12 rule 3.
Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Effect of Preliminary Objection Raised in Defence
The mere mention of a preliminary objection in a written statement of defence does not suspend or exempt the plaintiff from the duty to take out summons for directions under Order 12 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. A preliminary objection must be formally raised before the judge through a notice of motion or argued at the hearing of summons for directions; it does not stay proceedings or remove the plaintiff's obligation to move the suit forward.
Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Effect of Consent with Some Defendants
Entering into a consent judgment with some defendants does not extinguish the plaintiff's duty to take out summons for directions in respect of remaining defendants who were not party to the consent. A consent judgment only affects the parties to it and has no legal effect on non-consenting parties. The suit continues against the remaining defendants and the plaintiff must prosecute the case to its conclusion, including taking summons for directions for the pending portion of the case.
Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
For an error to be apparent on the face of the record justifying review, it must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument or extraneous matter to establish. It must be an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of record; such matters are properly the subject of appeal, not review.
Civil Procedure — Constitutional Principle — Substance Over Technicalities
Article 126(2) of the Constitution of Uganda 1995 enjoins courts to prioritize substance over technicalities, especially where justice requires it. Where a party mislabels an application (for example, as a review when it should be under Order 50 rule 8), the High Court retains supervisory and inherent powers to entertain the application on merit if the facts are well set out, the error alleged is procedural and not substantive, and entertaining the application will not prejudice the respondent.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (30)

  • Attorney General & Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and James Kamala (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Murangwa Bruno & Anor v Luyimbazi James (High Court Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0016 of 2019)
  • Makula International v Cardinal Wamala Nsubuga [1992] HCB 1
  • Ocen Kassim v Soroti District Land Board & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 077 of 2020)
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga (Court of Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Bank of Uganda v The Registered Trustees of UMSC (Miscellaneous Application No. 238 of 2014)
  • Dr. Ahmed Kaleebi v Registered Trustees of UMSC (Miscellaneous Application No. 238 of 2014)
  • Karmal Rajas v Attorney General [1952] EA 263
  • Electric Maxx Uganda Limited v Oryx Oil Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 351 of 2020)
  • Electro Maxx Uganda Limited v Oryx Oil Uganda Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 251 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 17
  • Nicholas Roussos v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani and another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga & another [2000] UGSC 13
  • Yusuf Magoba v Attorney General [1995] HCB 73
  • Joseph Borowski vs Attorney general of Canada (1989)1 S.C.R
  • Minex Katia v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 208 of 2022)
  • Kalokola Kaloli v Nduga Robert (Miscellaneous Application No. 497 of 2014)
  • Abdul Jafar Devji v Ali RMS Devji [1958] EA 558
  • FX Mubwike v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Kasirye v Ahumuza Begeine aka Tasha (Miscellaneous Application No. 150 of 2020) [2020] UGHCCD 222
  • Epielu Echoku George Stephen v Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 76 of 2021)
  • Kasirye Calton v Ahumumuza Bageine aka TASHA (Miscellaneous Application No. 150 of 2020) [2020] UGHCCD 222
  • Bamanye Fazil v Nankunda Rose (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0007 of 2009)
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] EA 173
  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank and another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 82 of 2010)
  • Simon Mwesigwa Philip v Standard Chartered Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 82 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Mugerwa Francis v NSSF (High Court Civil Suit No. 444 of 2009)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v HO-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 0629 of 2008)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Kikonyogo B.P. Enterprises Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 37 of 2017)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mirembe Harriet v Taabuabu and Others (Miscellaneous Application 311 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 1524 (19 December 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.