Wakilii

Ogwang v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 548 of 2012)

High Court · [2015] UGHCCD 25 · 2015 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Notice of Motion to reinstate a civil suit previously dismissed under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution
Decision
Application to reinstate dismissed suit refused

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

The High Court has no power to reinstate a suit dismissed under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for spending more than two years without any steps taken to have it heard. The plaintiff's remedy lies in Order 17 rule 6(2) which permits bringing a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation.

Outcome

Application to reinstate dismissed suit refused

Facts

Civil Suit No. 625 of 2004 between the applicant as plaintiff and Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd as defendant was dismissed by Justice V.F. Musoke Kibuuka on 30 October 2009 under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The dismissal was based on the suit having spent more than two years without any steps being taken by the parties to have it heard and determined. The applicant brought an application by Notice of Motion to reinstate the dismissed suit, citing multiple provisions including the Judicature Act, Civil Procedure Act, and various rules of the Civil Procedure Rules including Order 9 rule 23.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has power to reinstate a suit dismissed under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.
  • Costs to be met by learned counsel for the applicant personally.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Reinstatement — Order 17 rule 6(1)
A suit dismissed under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution cannot in law be reinstated.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Remedy — Fresh Suit
Where a suit has been dismissed under Order 17 rule 6(1) for want of prosecution, the remedy for the plaintiff lies in Order 17 rule 6(2) which provides that the plaintiff may, subject to the law of limitation, bring a fresh suit.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Personal Costs Against Counsel
Where an application is filed in a careless manner, the court may order that costs be met by counsel personally.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ogwang v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 548 of 2012) [2015] UGHCCD 25 (2 February 2015)
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.