Ocan Songa v Orombi Jimmy [2026] UGHC 821

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.

Holding

The applicant sought to set aside the dismissal of his civil appeal for want of prosecution, pleading illness and the abandonment of his file by his former counsel. The High Court held that once an appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 43 rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the same court cannot reinstate it; the aggrieved party's only recourse is an appeal against the dismissal or the commencement of a fresh action subject to limitation. The court therefore did not consider the sufficiency of the reasons advanced for the applicant's failure to prosecute. The application was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

Application for reinstatement of Civil Appeal No. 0091 of 2022 dismissed; dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution stands

Facts

The respondent had sued the applicant in Civil Suit No. 0039 of 2021, where the court ordered that the suit land formed part of the estate of the late Oroga. Dissatisfied, the applicant and his brother filed Civil Appeal No. 0091 of 2022 in the High Court at Arua. That appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 27 September 2024. The applicant's brother, the first appellant, died on 31 March 2024. The applicant said he had been prosecuting the appeal through a private arrangement with one Abiti Paul, who demanded fees of UGX 7,000,000 and transport of UGX 300,000 that the applicant could not pay, after which contact was lost and the file was retained by that person. The applicant also said he fell ill in 2024, was admitted at Nebbi General Hospital and underwent an operation on his right leg, and only learned of the dismissal from a court clerk in March 2025. The respondent replied that the appeal had been filed out of time without leave and was a nullity, that the appellants were guilty of dilatory conduct over two years, that the alleged counsel was not a licensed advocate, and that the medical notes disclosed no disabling illness.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient grounds for reinstatement of Civil Appeal No. 0091 of 2022, which had been dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to reinstate its own appeal dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 43 rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.33 (now s.37)
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 52 rules 1, 2 and 3
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 43 rule 31

Cases cited (1)

• Gold Beverages (U) Ltd v Muhangura Kenneth and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 674 of 2019)

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