Wakilii

Otto v Makerere University (Misc. Application No.443 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 83 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of dismissal order under O.47 r.1(b) CPR
Decision
Application for review dismissed; applicant advised that remedy lies in bringing a fresh suit under O.17 r.6(2) CPR subject to limitation

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: an application for review under O.46 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not lie where the original suit was dismissed for want of prosecution under O.17 r.6(1) without hearing and without judgment. The proper remedy where a suit has been dismissed under O.17 r.6(1) is provided by O.17 r.6(2), which allows the plaintiff to bring a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; applicant advised that remedy lies in bringing a fresh suit under O.17 r.6(2) CPR subject to limitation

Facts

The applicant sought review and setting aside of a dismissal order made on 20 February 2013 in High Court Civil Suit 68 of 2008. The original suit had been dismissed under O.17 r.6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution after no step was taken for two years. The applicant argued the dismissal was based on mistake and error apparent on record, that the suit had already been scheduled, and that he learned of the dismissal only when attempting to obtain a hearing date. He contended he could not file a fresh suit as it would be time-barred. The respondent was served but did not appear at the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether an application for review under O.46 r.1(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules lies in respect of a dismissal order made under O.17 r.6(1) where no judgment was delivered.
  2. What is the appropriate remedy for a party aggrieved by a dismissal under O.17 r.6(1) for want of prosecution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Scope of Review Jurisdiction — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
An application for review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not lie in respect of a dismissal order made under Order 17 rule 6(1) for want of prosecution where the suit was never heard and no judgment was delivered. Order 46 applies to review of judgments, not to procedural dismissal orders.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Remedy Under O.17 r.6(2) CPR
Where a suit has been dismissed under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to take steps for two years, the proper remedy is prescribed by Order 17 rule 6(2), which permits the plaintiff to bring a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation. An application for review under Order 46 is not the appropriate procedure.

Legislation cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Otto v Makerere University (Misc. Application No.443 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 83 (23 June 2014)
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.