Wakilii

Odeng Patrick Pius v Nanjing Hotel (Miscellaneous Application No. 481 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 219 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal order of underlying civil suit
Decision
Dismissal order set aside and underlying suit reinstated for hearing on merits

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 where an applicant filed summons for directions within the prescribed time but the court failed to endorse them, and counsel's negligence in failing to notice a hearing date cannot be visited upon a vigilant litigant, there is sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside a dismissal order entered for non-appearance. The court exercised its discretion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act in the interest of justice to reinstate the suit.

Outcome

Dismissal order set aside and underlying suit reinstated for hearing on merits

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 663 of 2024 on 31 May 2024 claiming UGX 200,000,000 for unjust enrichment arising from the respondent's use of his images and videos in commercial advertisements. The respondent filed a Written Statement of Defence on 19 July 2024. On 5 August 2024, the applicant uploaded summons for directions and a letter requesting their issuance to ECCMIS, but the summons were never endorsed by the court. On 27 January 2025, when the matter came up for hearing, neither party appeared and the suit was dismissed under Order 9 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant filed this application on 11 March 2025 seeking to set aside the dismissal order. The respondent opposed, contending that the suit had automatically abated on 10 October 2024 for failure to extract summons for directions within 28 days, and that the applicant was guilty of inordinate delay.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal order of Civil Suit No. 663 of 2024?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The dismissal order of High Court Civil Suit No. 663 of 2024; Odeng Patrick Pius v Nanjing Hotel is hereby set aside.
  • High Court Civil Suit No. 663 of 2024; Odeng Patrick Pius v Nanjing Hotel is hereby reinstated.
  • High Court Civil Suit No. 663 of 2024 Odeng Patrick Pius v Nanjing Hotel is fixed for mention on 27th August, 2025 at 8:30am.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Dismissal Orders — Sufficient Cause — Counsel's Negligence Not Visited on Vigilant Litigant
Where an applicant has instructed counsel in time and filed summons for directions within the prescribed period but the court failed to endorse them, and counsel was negligent in failing to notice a hearing date, the mistake of counsel cannot be visited upon a vigilant litigant and constitutes sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside a dismissal order.
Civil Procedure — Sufficient Cause — Definition and Application
Sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules means that a party has not acted in a negligent manner, there was no want of bona fides on its part in view of the facts and circumstances, and the party cannot be alleged to have been not acting diligently or remaining inactive, with each case to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suits — Summons for Directions Filed but Not Endorsed
Where an applicant extracts summons for directions within the time prescribed by Order 11A rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules but the court fails to endorse them, the suit does not automatically abate for failure to take out summons for directions, and a subsequent dismissal under Order 9 rule 17 for non-appearance can be set aside upon showing sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of Court — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act
Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, including setting aside dismissal orders where there is sufficient cause and the interests of justice so require.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (9)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Gideon Mose Onchwati Vs Kenyan Oil Co. Ltd & Another [2017] eKLR
  • Kalemesa Samuel Wilson v Kaggwa Christopher Chris & 7 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 776 of 2023)
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1987)
  • Sipiriya Kyarulesire v Justine Bakanchurike Bagambe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
  • Parimal Vs Veena Alias Bhati [2011] 3 SCC 545
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Attorney General v AKPM Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • Godfrey Magezi and Brian Mbazira v Sudhir Ruparelia (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 10 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Odeng Patrick Pius v Nanjing Hotel (Miscellaneous Application No. 481 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 219 (15 July 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.