Turyatemba William v Rubis Energy Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 150 of 2024)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that a suit dismissed under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution cannot be reinstated by way of application. The remedy available to the plaintiff is to file a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation as provided under Order 17 rule 6(2). The Court may invoke inherent jurisdiction to set aside such dismissal only in special or rare circumstances. Where the applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances and did not take active steps to prosecute the matter for over two years, the application was not competently before the Court.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 256 of 2015 by way of summary procedure against the respondent. The respondent applied for and was granted leave to appear and defend vide Miscellaneous Application No. 370 of 2015. The ruling in that application was delivered on 20 November 2015. The applicant alleged he was never served with the ruling or subsequent hearing notices. Between 2015 and 2022, the applicant fell ill and his lawyers were unable to locate the file. On 10 January 2018, the suit was dismissed under Order 17 rule 6 for want of prosecution. On 27 January 2023, the applicant obtained certified copies of the record and discovered the dismissal. He filed this application on 18 November 2024 seeking to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the suit. The respondent opposed, arguing the application was time-barred and that the applicant had failed to take active steps to prosecute the suit for over two years before dismissal.

Issues

1. Whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal order of Civil Suit No. 256 of 2015?
2. Whether the application is competently before the Court given that the suit was dismissed under Order 17 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules?

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.14
• Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.33
• Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.37
• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 17 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 rule 6(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 rule 6(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 10
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 5(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 28

Cases cited (10)

• Oriental Insurance Brokers Ltd v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
• Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2017)
• Kibugumu Patrick v Aisha Mulugi and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 455 of 2014)
• Ogwang Olebe Francis v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 548 of 2012)
• Ssemanda Edward and Others v Nakku Tereza and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 166 of 2019)
• Rawal v Mombasa Hardware Ltd [1968] EA 392
• Adonia v Mutekanga [1970] EA 429
• Dr. Ephriam Basaliza v Kambarage Kakonge (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2013)
• Sobetra (U) Ltd v West Nile Electrification Company Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 616 of 2014)
• Muhindo Peace Fredrick v KUKA (Uganda) Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2024)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Muyimbwa Frank v Fr. Ssemujju Denis (Miscellaneous Application No. 178 of 2025)

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