Wakilii

Suryakant v Gume (Civil Suit 98 of 2017)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 293 · 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 for want of prosecution
Decision
Suit remains abated; reinstatement order set aside

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 that where a suit abates under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 for want of prosecution, the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to institute a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation. Reinstatement of an abated suit is not tenable and contrary to law. The Deputy Registrar's order reinstating the suit was an illegality that could not be left to stand.

Outcome

Suit remains abated; reinstatement order set aside

Facts

The plaintiff instituted a land suit in August 2017. After amendments and withdrawal of claims against certain defendants, the matter was fixed for hearing. Several adjournments followed until March 2020. No further steps were taken by either party for over 18 months. In December 2021, the defendants moved court by letter, and the Deputy Registrar noted that the suit 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. In March 2022, the plaintiff's counsel wrote requesting administrative reinstatement, arguing the 2019 rules did not apply retrospectively to a 2017 suit. The Deputy Registrar reinstated the matter. The defendants objected, contending the reinstatement was illegal and that the Deputy Registrar became functus officio after declaring the suit abated.

Issues

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

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Order for reinstatement of the abated suit expunged from the Court record.
  • Plaintiff may institute a fresh suit if he so desires.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suit — Want of Prosecution — Order 17 Rule 5
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, the suit automatically abates under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019.
Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suit — Remedy After Abatement
Once a suit abates under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019, the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to institute a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation. Reinstatement of an abated suit is not tenable.
Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Deputy Registrar's Jurisdiction
Once a Deputy Registrar makes an order declaring a suit abated, the Deputy Registrar becomes functus officio and ceases to have jurisdiction to reinstate the same suit.
Civil Procedure — Illegality — Court's Duty
An illegality once brought to the attention of the court overrides all considerations including pleadings and cannot be left to stand.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 03 of 2008)
  • Rwabuganda Godfrey v Bitamiss, Namudu (CCCA No. 87 of 2010)
  • Abdul Ddamulira v Mss Xsabo Power Limited (HCMA No. 046 of 2021)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (SCCA No. 4 of 1981)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Suryakant v Gume (Civil Suit 98 of 2017) [2022] UGHCCD 293 (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.