Wakilii

Sserunjogi Betty v Irumba Justine [2026] UGHCLD 92

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to set aside an order dismissing a civil appeal and to reinstate the appeal
Decision
Application to set aside the dismissal and reinstate Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2023 dismissed with costs; the dismissal of the appeal stands

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 dismissed an application to set aside the dismissal of a civil appeal and reinstate it. Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits reinstatement only where a matter was dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 for non-appearance when called for hearing. The appeal here was dismissed for want of service of the memorandum of appeal and submissions, so the application was brought under the wrong law. On the merits, the grounds relied on were factually incorrect: ECCMIS records showed the court had issued directives on 5 April 2024, uploaded on 8 April 2024. Sufficient cause must explain the inability to take the required step in time; no such explanation was given.

Outcome

Application to set aside the dismissal and reinstate Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2023 dismissed with costs; the dismissal of the appeal stands

Facts

Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2023 was filed on 22 September 2023 through ECCMIS and served on the respondent's lawyers on 13 March 2024. On 5 April 2024 the trial judge issued directives requiring the appellant to file written submissions and to serve the appeal, submissions and the court's scheduling directives on the respondent; those directives were uploaded on ECCMIS on 8 April 2024. In the absence of any affidavit of service showing compliance, the judge dismissed the appeal on 22 April 2024 for want of service. Counsel for the applicant deposed that she was unaware of any hearing date, having written to the Deputy Registrar on 18 March 2024 requesting a fixture and having been told by the judge's clerk that the judge was retiring and not fixing new matters, and that she only discovered the dismissal on 5 May 2025. The application to set aside the dismissal was filed on 12 June 2025. The respondent contended the application was brought under the wrong law, was inordinately delayed and lacked merit.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to set aside the dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2023 was brought under the correct enabling law.
  2. Whether the applicant established sufficient cause to justify setting aside the dismissal and reinstating the appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reinstatement — Order 9 rule 23 CPR Confined to Dismissals for Non-Appearance
Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits the setting aside of a dismissal only where the matter was dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 for non-appearance when it was called for hearing; it does not apply to a matter dismissed for want of service of pleadings or submissions.
Civil Procedure — Applications — Effect of Citing the Wrong Enabling Provision
Where an application invokes a provision that addresses a different situation from the relief actually sought, the grounds, supporting evidence and submissions are directed to the wrong question and the application cannot succeed.
Civil Procedure — Sufficient Cause — Requirement to Explain Failure to Take a Step in Time
Sufficient cause must relate to the party's inability or failure to take a particular procedural step within time; grounds founded on facts that are demonstrably incorrect, including facts contradicted by the court's electronic record, cannot amount to sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Duty of Counsel — Verification of Court Record Before Impugning a Judicial Order
Counsel who deposes an affidavit challenging a dismissal order must first investigate and understand the reasons for the dismissal and verify the court record, including directives uploaded on ECCMIS, before attributing impropriety to the court.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Zinsobedde (Civil Application No. 5 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sserunjogi Betty v Irumba Justine [2026] UGHCLD 92 (25 March 2026)
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.