Wakilii

Nyamai Cynthia v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 1638 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 466 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review and reinstatement of a suit dismissed under Order 17 rule 4 for non-appearance
Decision
Application for review and reinstatement dismissed; Civil Suit No. 29 of 2020 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

Held that a dismissal under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules for non-appearance is a final decree on the merits, not a procedural order. The applicant's claim of error apparent on the face of the record—that the court wrongly applied Order 17 rule 4—does not constitute a reviewable error but rather an erroneous decision appealable to a higher court. The court has no jurisdiction to review or reinstate a suit dismissed under Order 17 rule 4; the aggrieved party's remedy is by way of appeal. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for review and reinstatement dismissed; Civil Suit No. 29 of 2020 remains dismissed

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 29 of 2020 against the respondent. The parties filed a Joint Scheduling Memorandum on 12 March 2024. On 28 May 2025, the court listed the matter for hearing. The applicant did not appear; the respondent did. The court noted that a related miscellaneous application had been dismissed for non-appearance and dismissed the suit under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant's counsel stated they were not notified of the hearing date and only learned of the dismissal via ECCMIS during a routine check. The applicant brought this application seeking review and reinstatement, arguing the dismissal was an error apparent on the face of the record because the applicant had filed all required documents and diligently prosecuted the suit. The respondent opposed, arguing that dismissal under Order 17 rule 4 is a decree on the merits and renders the matter res judicata, precluding review or reinstatement.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application raises grounds for review of the dismissal order in Civil Suit No. 29 of 2020, delivered on 28th May 2025.
  2. Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 29 of 2020 and reinstating the same for hearing inter parties.
  3. What are the available remedies?

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be an evident error which does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness; it must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. Where a court wrongly applies a rule of procedure, this does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review but is rather an erroneous decision that can be corrected by a higher forum on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal of Suits — Order 17 Rule 4 — Nature of Dismissal Order
A dismissal under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules for non-appearance is a decision on the merits resulting in a decree that is both valid and enforceable. Such dismissal is not merely procedural but carries the weight of a decree, and the order attains a degree of finality that precludes the same court from revisiting or setting aside its own decision.
Civil Procedure — Reinstatement of Suits — Dismissal Under Order 17 Rule 4 — Availability of Remedy
Where a suit has been dismissed under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the dismissal order is final in nature and disposes of the suit. The court has no jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the suit for hearing. The remedy of a party aggrieved by an order under Order 17 rule 4 is by way of appeal or review, not by way of an application for restoration.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (21)

  • DFCU Bank Limited v Colline Hotel Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 799 of 2023)
  • Kwesiga v Commercial Bank of Africa (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1197 of 2021)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd and 4 others v Electronics Ltd and Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 124 of 2024)
  • Salem Ahmed Hasson Zaidi v Faud Hussein Humeidan [1960] 1 EA 92
  • Elias Kakooza & Ors v Ahimbisibwe Stephen & Anor (High Court Land Division Civil Revision No. 01 of 2019)
  • Mohamed Alibhai v E.E. Bukenya Mukasa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • In Re: Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd and in the matter of the Companies Act (1979) HCB 12
  • Yusufu v Nokrach (1971) EA 104
  • Ladak Abdallah Mohammed Hussein v Isingoma Kakiiza (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Edison Kanyabwere v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • F.X Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Kishor Kumar Dhanji v Ndeffo Limited Civil Case No.170 of 2009
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates v Kogo [2001] 1 EA 173
  • Igga Godfrey & Others v The Registered Trustees of Pentecostal Assemblies of God & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2016)
  • National Bank of Kenya V Ndungu Njau Civil Appeal No.211 of 1996
  • Pentecostal Assemblies of God Lira Limited v Pentecostal Assemblies of God Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2018)
  • Diamond Trust Bank Ltd v Puma Energy Tanzania Civil Application No. 40 of 2016
  • Zainabu Juma Kaswaka v KCB Bank Tanzania Limited & 5 Ors Misc. Civil Application No. 20 of 2022
  • Mamata Samantaray v Saraswati Patra C.M.P No.64 of 2023
  • Ashok Kumar Singh v Sri Prabhat Kumar Ghose and The Jharkhand State Housing Board AIR 2008 Jhar 76: (2008) 1 JCR 445
  • Saggu v Roadmaster

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyamai Cynthia v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 1638 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 466 (17 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.