Wakilii

Tururondwa v Attorney General & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 79 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 389 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal order and reinstate civil suit dismissed for abatement
Decision
Application dismissed as misconceived; applicant may file 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

Held that once a suit is declared to have abated under Order 11A of the Civil Procedure Rules, an application to reinstate the suit is untenable. The only remedy available to a litigant whose suit has abated is to file a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation as provided under Order 11A Rule 7. The application was misconceived and dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed as misconceived; applicant may file fresh suit subject to limitation

Facts

The applicant filed HCCS No. 57 of 2019 in December 2019. She alleged she was prevented from prosecuting the suit due to absence of the trial judge and COVID-19 restrictions from 2020 to 2022. The file was allocated to a judge and the matter was fixed for 24 February 2022, whereupon it was dismissed on account of having abated under Order 11A Rule 1(2) and 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to take out summons for directions. The applicant brought this application under Order 9 Rule 18 and Order 52 Rule 1 seeking to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the suit, arguing that COVID-19 restrictions prevented her from prosecuting the case. Summons for directions had been filed on 3 March 2020 and fixed for 21 April 2020, but no court sat due to lockdown.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the suit was properly brought under Order 9 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether a suit dismissed for abatement can be reinstated by court order.
  3. Whether the applicant established sufficient cause to warrant reinstatement of the suit.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suits — Reinstatement After Abatement
Once a suit is declared to have abated under Order 11A of the Civil Procedure Rules, an application to reinstate the suit is untenable and the only remedy available is to file a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation.
Civil Procedure — Order 9 Rule 18 — Scope of Application
Order 9 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies only to situations where a suit is dismissed for non-appearance when called for hearing or where summons has not been served upon the defendant due to the plaintiff's failure to pay court fees. It does not apply to suits dismissed for abatement under Order 11A.
Civil Procedure — Abatement — Remedy Under Order 11A Rule 7
Order 11A Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules is specific that where a suit is declared to have abated, the remedy available to a litigant is to file a fresh suit subject to the law on limitation. The rules do not provide for reinstatement of an abated suit.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Charles Harry Twagila and 2 Others v Attorney General and 2 Others (SCMA No. 15 of 2006)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Prime Contractors and 2 Others (HCMA No. 715 of 2014)
  • Abdul Ddamulira v Mss Xsabo Power Limited (HCMA No. 046 of 2021)
  • King College Budo Staff Savings Scheme Limited v Lukanga Bosco and Another (HCCS No. 26 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tururondwa v Attorney General & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 79 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 389 (7 September 2023)
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.