Wakilii

Nadia Dimitrova Mileva v KCB (U) Limited (Misc. Application No. 1648 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 496 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal of civil suit and reinstate for hearing
Decision
Application to set aside dismissal refused; underlying civil suit remains dismissed

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 dismissed the application to set aside the dismissal of the underlying civil suit. The court held that a dismissal under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules constitutes a decision on the merits with the finality of a decree, and the proper remedy is appeal, not reinstatement. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance, as ECCMIS records showed she had access to the system and should have been aware of hearing notices. The court allowed the late-filed affidavit in reply, adopting a flexible approach that prioritises substantive justice over procedural technicalities where no prejudice is shown.

Outcome

Application to set aside dismissal refused; underlying civil suit remains dismissed

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 867 of 2022 against the respondent bank seeking recovery of UGX 121,025,185 allegedly withdrawn from her account without consent, plus damages. The applicant changed legal representation multiple times: from M/s Sebbowa & Company Advocates to M/s Karungi & Partners Advocates in May 2024, then to M/s Meritas Advocates in April 2025. The court cause-listed the matter for hearing on 24 June 2025 and again on 2 July 2025. Neither party appeared on either date. The court dismissed the suit under Order 17 rule 4 on 18 July 2025. The applicant's current counsel, M/s Meritas Advocates, filed this application on 22 July 2025 seeking to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the suit. The applicant claimed she and her counsel were not served with hearing notices. The respondent filed an affidavit in reply four days out of time, arguing that hearing notices were properly served on the applicant's known lawyers via ECCMIS.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in reply should be struck off for having been filed out of time.
  2. Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 867 of 2022 and reinstating the same for hearing inter-parties.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Late Filing — Discretion to Allow
An affidavit in reply, being evidence rather than a pleading in the strict sense, should be filed within a reasonable time before the hearing date to allow the adverse party a fair opportunity to respond. Where an affidavit in reply is filed out of time but before the hearing, and the applicant demonstrates no prejudice or any prejudice can be remedied by costs, the court may exercise its discretion to allow the affidavit rather than strike it out, prioritising substantive justice over rigid adherence to procedural timelines.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal under Order 17 Rule 4 — Nature and Effect — Finality
A dismissal under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empowers the court to proceed and decide a suit notwithstanding a party's failure to produce evidence or perform any act necessary to the progress of the suit, constitutes a decision on the merits resulting in a decree that is both valid and enforceable. Such dismissal carries the weight of a decree with a degree of finality that precludes the same court from revisiting or setting aside its own decision. The only recourse available to an aggrieved party is to pursue an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Reinstatement of Dismissed Suits — Sufficient Cause — ECCMIS Access and Notice
Where an applicant seeks to set aside a dismissal for non-appearance, claiming lack of notice, but the court's electronic case management system (ECCMIS) shows that the applicant and counsel had access to the system and successfully uploaded documents during the relevant period, the claim of being unable to view hearing notices lacks substantiation. A party who demonstrates functional use of ECCMIS for uploading documents cannot credibly claim inability to view hearing notices uploaded to the same system.
Civil Procedure — Change of Advocates — Litigant's Duty to Monitor Case Progress
Where a litigant changes legal representatives frequently, it is incumbent upon the litigant to stay actively informed about developments in the case. Frequent transitions between lawyers risk miscommunication and lapses in continuity, making it essential for the litigant to ensure they remain updated and engaged with each new lawyer and the progress of the case. A litigant who fails to take personal responsibility for monitoring case progress despite frequent changes of counsel cannot rely on those changes as sufficient cause for non-appearance.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (7)

  • Isadru Vicky v Penina Aroma (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2024)
  • Nalugya Federesi v Kative Nkonge Paul & 2 Others (Misc. Application No. 197 of 2023)
  • Kanshabe Barbara v Finca Uganda Limited & 2 Others (Misc. Application No. 47 of 2022)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Misc. Application No. 0333 of 2010)
  • Senyonjo v Wakiso District Local Government Council & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 232 of 2023)
  • Dr Lam Lagoro James v Muni University (Misc. Cause No. 007 of 2016)
  • Pentecostal Assemblies of God Lira Limited v Pentecostal Assemblies of God Limited & Another (Misc. Application No. 14 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nadia Dimitrova Mileva v KCB (U) Limited (Misc. Application No. 1648 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 496 (23 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.