Wakilii

Suryakant Manibhai v Gume and Another (Civil Suit No. 98 of 2017)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 275 · 2022 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to reinstatement of suit that had abated under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019
Decision
Suit remains abated; plaintiff may institute fresh suit 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

The court held that once a suit abates under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019, reinstatement is not permissible. The only remedy available to the plaintiff is to institute a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation. The Deputy Registrar's reinstatement order was contrary to law and constituted an illegality that could not be left to stand. The preliminary objection was upheld and the reinstatement order was expunged from the court record.

Outcome

Suit remains abated; plaintiff may institute fresh suit subject to limitation

Facts

The plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 98 of 2017 seeking ownership declaration and compensation for land comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 668 Folio 13 at Plot 16 Clive Road West Jinja. After amendments, the matter was set for hearing but experienced several adjournments. The last court appearance was on 19 November 2019, with the matter adjourned to 24 March 2020. No further steps were taken by either party. On 10 December 2021, defendants' counsel moved by letter for the suit to be closed as it had automatically abated under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019, which provides that a suit abates where no application or step is taken for six months. The Deputy Registrar closed the file on 13 December 2021. On 28 March 2022, plaintiff's counsel wrote requesting reinstatement, which the Deputy Registrar granted on 14 April 2022. Defendants objected on grounds that reinstatement was illegal once abatement had occurred.

Issues

  1. Whether the reinstatement of the suit that had abated was illegally done.

Orders

  • The reinstatement of the abated suit is declared illegal and expunged from the court record.
  • The preliminary objection raised by Counsel for the Defendants is upheld.
  • The Plaintiff may institute a fresh suit if he so desires.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suit — Automatic Abatement for Want of Prosecution
Under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019, a suit automatically abates where no application is made or step taken for a period of six months by either party with a view to proceeding with the suit.
Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suit — Remedy After Abatement
Once a suit has abated under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019, reinstatement is not permissible. The only remedy available to the plaintiff is to institute a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation.
Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Registrar's Jurisdiction After Abatement Order
Once a Deputy Registrar makes an order that a suit has automatically abated, the Deputy Registrar becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to order reinstatement of the same suit.
Civil Procedure — Illegality — Effect of Illegal Order
An illegality once brought to the attention of the court overrides all other considerations including pleadings and cannot be left to stand. An order for reinstatement of an abated suit contrary to the express provision of law constitutes an illegality that must be expunged.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Abdul Ddamulira v Xsabo Power Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 046 of 2021)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 03 of 2008)
  • Rwabuganda Godfrey Vs Bitamiss, Namudu CCCA No. 87 of 2010

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Suryakant Manibhai v Gume and Another (Civil Suit No. 98 of 2017) [2022] UGHCCD 275 (16 November 2022)
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.