Wakilii

Nasande and Another v Kafeero and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 132 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 427 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal of Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 2023 for want of prosecution and for stay of execution
Decision
Application to set aside dismissal refused; applicants remain bound by earlier dismissal and have no valid pending appeal

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

Application dismissed. The court held that illness of a party alone was not sufficient cause for non-appearance where counsel also failed to attend without explanation. Further, applicants who were self-confessed contemnors—having evicted respondents from land decreed to them and failed to comply with conditions for security for due performance—could not obtain discretionary relief without first purging their contempt. The interests of justice favoured the respondents who had been prevented from enjoying the fruits of their litigation since 2021.

Outcome

Application to set aside dismissal refused; applicants remain bound by earlier dismissal and have no valid pending appeal

Facts

Applicants sued respondents for trespass in Civil Suit No. 15 of 2018 at Chief Magistrate's Court, Kibaale. Suit was decided in favour of respondents on 26 May 2021, declaring them rightful owners of the suit land. Despite this, applicants evicted the 4th respondent from the land. Applicants filed an appeal and Miscellaneous Application No. 71 of 2021 for stay of execution, which was granted on 19 January 2022 on condition that they pay security for due performance of UGX 1,500,000 within two weeks and file memorandum of appeal. Applicants failed to comply. They then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 2023 for extension of time to pay the security. That application was dismissed on 10 November 2023 for want of prosecution when neither applicants nor their counsel appeared. The instant application sought to set aside that dismissal on grounds that the 1st applicant was in hospital with the 2nd applicant who had pregnancy complications.

Issues

  1. Whether there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the applicants on the date Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 2023 was called for hearing.
  2. Whether the applicants should be granted an order setting aside the dismissal of Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 2023.
  3. Whether a party in contempt of court by disobeying existing court orders can be heard in a related application without first purging the contempt.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Setting Aside — Sufficient Cause
Under Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a plaintiff or applicant seeking to set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution must satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance. Illness of a party does not constitute sufficient cause where counsel also failed to attend without explanation, particularly where the matter was an interlocutory application that could be argued by counsel in the party's absence.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Clean Hands Doctrine — Right to be Heard
A party in contempt of court by disobeying existing court orders cannot be heard in a different but related cause or motion unless and until such person has purged himself or herself of the contempt. Contempt may be deduced from any conduct which interferes with the administration of justice or impedes or perverts the course of justice.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Failure to Comply — Contempt of Court
Failure to deposit security for costs within the time stipulated by a court order constitutes contempt of court. Where a party was granted leave to appeal out of time on condition of paying security for due performance and failed to do so, any subsequent application based on the existence of that appeal has no likelihood of success.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Nicholas Rousous v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani and Another (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Hikima Kyamanywa v Sajjabi Chris (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • Boney M. Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
  • Jingo Livingstone v Hope Rwaguma (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2015) [2021] UGCA
  • Housing Finance Bank and Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Goyal v Goyal and Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nasande and Another v Kafeero and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 132 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 427 (19 April 2024)
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.