Wakilii

Ssebuwufu v Nassali (Miscellaneous Application 2405 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 39 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal order made under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules for non-appearance
Decision
Matter reinstated for hearing on the 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

The court held that counsel's inability to attend court on time due to a traffic blockade for a presidential convoy constituted sufficient cause for non-appearance under Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that counsel's actions were not negligent and that a vigilant applicant should not be penalised for circumstances beyond counsel's control. The dismissal order was set aside and the matter reinstated.

Outcome

Matter reinstated for hearing on the merits

Facts

The applicant filed HCMC No. 117 of 2024 seeking orders relating to property comprised in Kibuga Block 2 Plot 90 land at Bukesa. The matter was scheduled for hearing on 6 September 2024 at 12:00pm. Neither the applicant (a resident of Salzburg, Australia) nor his counsel appeared in court. Counsel deposed that she set out for court at 10:30am but was delayed by a traffic blockade lasting 30-40 minutes due to a presidential convoy being escorted by police and Special Force Command around Kitante/Yusuf Lule and Acacia Avenue road junction. She arrived at court at 12:15pm to find the matter had already been dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 for non-appearance. The respondents did not oppose the application to set aside the dismissal.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate HCMC No. 117 of 2024.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Dismissal order for HCMC No. 117 of 2024 set aside.
  • HCMC No. 117 of 2024 reinstated.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Dismissal for Non-Appearance — Sufficient Cause — Test
Sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules means that a party has not acted in a negligent manner or there was no want of bonafides on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of each case, and the party cannot be alleged to have been not acting diligently or remaining inactive.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Dismissal — Traffic Blockade for Presidential Convoy — Circumstances Beyond Counsel's Control
Where counsel is prevented from attending court on time by a traffic blockade for a presidential convoy which takes precedence over all other road users, this constitutes sufficient cause for non-appearance and is a circumstance beyond counsel's control which should not prejudice the litigant.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Dismissal — Principles — Lawyer's Negligence Should Not Bar Client
Where an applicant instructed a lawyer in time, the applicant's rights should not be blocked on the grounds of the lawyer's negligence or omission to comply with the requirements of the law, and a vigilant applicant should not be penalised for the fault of counsel on whose actions the applicant has no control.
Civil Procedure — Unchallenged Affidavit Evidence — Effect
If an applicant supports the application by affidavit or other evidence and the respondent does not reply by affidavit or otherwise, and the supporting evidence is credible in itself, the facts stand unchallenged.
Civil Procedure — Rules of Procedure — Purpose — Handmaids of Justice
Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice and should serve to facilitate, not obstruct, the pursuit of justice; they should not be allowed to become an end in themselves by dominating substantive rights.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Bishop Jacinto Kibuuka v The Uganda Catholic Lawyers Society and Others (HCMA No. 696 of 2018)
  • Gideon Mosa Onchwati v Kenya Oil Company Limited & another (2017) E KLR
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (SCCA No. 6 of 1987)
  • Serefaco Consultants Limited v Euro Consults and Arcadis Euro Consult (CACA No. 16 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssebuwufu_v_Nassali_(Miscellaneous_Application_2405_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_39_(21_February_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.