Wakilii

Naluzzi Betty and Others v Nabaggala Gorrety and Others (Miscellaneous Application 196 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 460 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside Deputy Registrar's order dismissing main suit for abatement
Decision
Main suit reinstated for hearing on merits; Deputy Registrar's dismissal order set aside as a nullity

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 the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to order abatement of a suit under Order XIA rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the Registrar's powers are limited to those expressly prescribed in Order 50. The proper remedy against a Registrar's order is appeal, not review. The order dismissing the suit was a nullity and was set aside on grounds of illegality.

Outcome

Main suit reinstated for hearing on merits; Deputy Registrar's dismissal order set aside as a nullity

Facts

The applicants, beneficiaries of an estate, filed a civil suit (HCT-06-CV-CS-0034-2024) arising from an administration cause. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the suit for abatement on 21 October 2024, acting on a missive from the 2nd respondent alleging that summons for directions were not filed within 28 days after pleadings closed. The applicants contended that pleadings closed on 17 September 2024, not 11 September 2024, and that summons for directions were filed on 1 October 2024 within the prescribed time. They also argued they were not served with the 2nd respondent's missive and were denied a hearing. The applicants brought this application seeking to review and set aside the Deputy Registrar's order.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was competently before the High Court.
  2. Whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to order abatement of the main suit under Order XIA rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • The order dismissing HCT-06-CV-CS-0034-2024 made by the Deputy Registrar is set aside.
  • HCT-06-CV-CS-0034-2024 is reinstated and shall be heard on its merits.
  • Each party to bear their own costs for this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction of Registrars — Limits on Powers
The jurisdiction of Registrars of the High Court is restricted to matters expressly prescribed under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules and powers ancillary or incidental thereto. A Registrar has no jurisdiction to make orders for abatement of suits under Order XIA rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Review versus Appeal — Remedy Against Registrar's Orders
Under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the only remedy available to a party aggrieved by an order of a Registrar is by way of appeal. A High Court judge lacks jurisdiction to review a decision made by a Deputy Registrar; interference with a Registrar's decision can only be by appeal filed by way of notice of motion.
Administrative Law — Illegality — Duty of Court to Address Illegality Suo Motu
A court cannot sanction what is illegal. Where illegality is brought to the attention of the court by either party or suo motu, it overrides all questions of pleadings including any admission thereof. It is the duty of the court to take the point of illegality even where the litigants have not raised it.
Civil Procedure — Nullity — Effect of Orders Made Without Jurisdiction
Where a judicial officer acts without jurisdiction, the decision and orders ensuing therefrom are a nullity and cannot be left to stand on the record of the court.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (8)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Naluzzi Betty and Others v Nabaggala Gorrety and Others (Miscellaneous Application 196 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 460 (30 April 2026)
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.