Wakilii

Sekiboobo v Obonyo (Miscellaneous Application 84 of 1992)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 62 · 1992 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to have an application under Order 9 rule 20 heard during court vacation
Decision
Application for leave to be heard during court vacation dismissed for lack of urgency

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

An application for leave to be heard during court vacation under Rule 4 of the Court Vacation Rules requires demonstration of urgency. Where the ground relied upon — prevention of sale of attached property — has been overtaken by events because the property had already been sold before the application, there is no urgency justifying hearing during court vacation. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application for leave to be heard during court vacation dismissed for lack of urgency

Facts

The applicant was the judgement debtor in Civil Suit No. 79 of 1992. On 14 July 1992, an application under Order 33 rule 11 seeking to set aside a decree and stay execution was dismissed for want of prosecution when his advocate failed to appear. The applicant then filed an application under Order 9 rule 20 to set aside that dismissal order. He sought leave to have this application heard during court vacation on grounds that his advocate Edward Elue had been suddenly taken ill, and that if the application was not heard urgently, his property would be sold by the respondent's agents. The respondent opposed the application, submitting that the property had already been sold according to a bailiff's return dated 7 July 1992.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to have his application under Order 9 rule 20 heard during court vacation.
  2. Whether there was sufficient urgency to justify hearing the application during court vacation given that the property had allegedly already been sold.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Court Vacation — Applications for Leave — Requirement of Urgency
An application under Rule 4 of the Court Vacation Rules for leave to be heard during court vacation must demonstrate urgency; the test is whether, if the matter is not concluded during court vacation, prejudice will result that cannot be adequately remedied thereafter.
Court Vacation — Applications for Leave — Ground Overtaken by Events
Where an applicant seeks to be heard during court vacation on the ground that property will be sold if the application is not heard urgently, but the property has already been sold before the vacation application is heard, the ground has been overtaken by events and there is no urgency to justify hearing during vacation.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Rules Or. 9 r. 20
  • Civil Procedure Rules Or. 33 r. 11
  • Civil Procedure Rules Or. 48
  • Court Vacation Rules Rule 4

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sekiboobo v Obonyo (Miscellaneous Application 84 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 62 (8 September 1992)
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.