Wakilii

Tuwei Muhammad Kiprugu and Others v Eastern Uganda Agriculture Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 21 · 2026 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous appeal from Assistant Registrar's dismissal of applications for temporary and interim injunctions in underlying land suit
Decision
Applications reinstated for determination on merit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court held that the Assistant Registrar properly dismissed the applications under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules for non-appearance and want of prosecution, but applied the principle that counsel's negligence should not be visited on innocent litigants. The court reinstated the applications to be determined on merit while awarding costs to the respondents.

Outcome

Applications reinstated for determination on merit

Facts

The appellants instituted Civil Suit No. 075 of 2024 concerning land (Block 4 Plot 112, Bulambuli district) and filed applications for temporary and interim injunctions (Misc. Applications No. 248 and 249 of 2024) on 30 October 2024. The applications were not prosecuted until they were cause-listed for hearing on 7 May 2025. On that date, the appellants' counsel was before the Resident Judge at High Court Tororo and did not appear. The Assistant Registrar dismissed both applications for want of prosecution under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The appellants appealed, arguing that counsel had informed the court clerk of his engagement before a higher court and that the dismissal violated their right to be heard.

Issues

  1. Whether the Acting Assistant Registrar erred in reinstating locus standi for the 1st Respondent's counsel to represent the 2nd and 3rd Respondents without lawful and verified instructions.
  2. Whether the Acting Assistant Registrar erred in dismissing the appellants' applications when counsel was before the Resident Judge.
  3. Whether the Acting Assistant Registrar erred in dismissing the applications when the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents had conceded to the applications.
  4. Whether the Acting Assistant Registrar erred in hastily dismissing the applications without verifying the court record.
  5. Whether the Acting Assistant Registrar failed to act judiciously and violated the appellants' right to be heard.
  6. Whether the Acting Assistant Registrar summarily dismissed the applications without giving notice.
  7. Whether the Acting Assistant Registrar ignored the doctrine of natural justice.
  8. Whether the mistake or negligence of counsel should be visited on innocent litigants.

Orders

  • It is declared that the Assistant Registrar properly dismissed Miscellaneous Applications No. 248 and 249 of 2024.
  • Miscellaneous Applications No. 248 and 249 of 2024 are reinstated and shall be determined on merit.
  • Costs of this appeal/application are awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Capacity to Swear on Behalf of Company — Power of Attorney Required
A director of one company who swears an affidavit on behalf of other companies (even if they are shareholders in the first company) must attach a power of attorney to prove agency under Order 3 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules; a mere averment of having full mandate is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Locus Standi of Advocates — Burden of Proof on Challenger
Where a party alleges that an advocate has no instructions to represent a party, the burden is on the challenger to produce evidence supporting that allegation under section 101 of the Evidence Act; in the absence of such evidence, the court will not disturb the advocate's representation.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Non-Appearance — Order 9 Rule 22 — Proper Exercise of Discretion
Under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court has power to dismiss an application where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear; the Assistant Registrar properly exercised this discretion where applications instituted in October 2024 had not been prosecuted and the applicants did not appear at the hearing in May 2025.
Civil Procedure — Counsel's Duty to Delegate or Advise Client — Engagement Before Another Court Not Absolute Excuse
The issuance of instructions to counsel does not absolve a party from the duty to follow up the matter; where counsel is occupied before another court, counsel ought to delegate another advocate or advise the client to attend court, as this is a well-known and routinely followed practice.
Civil Procedure — Negligence of Counsel — Reinstatement Under Order 9 Rule 23 — Principle Against Visiting Counsel's Mistake on Innocent Litigants
Negligence and mistake of counsel should not be visited on innocent litigants; where a dismissal for non-appearance was proper but counsel's failure to inform the client or delegate another advocate caused the non-appearance, the court may reinstate the application under Order 9 rule 23(1) to avoid multiplicity of suits.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (7)

  • MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd v MacDowell Ltd (HCMA No. 825 of 2018)
  • Black Market Records Limited v Malinga Sulaiman and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2788 of 2023)
  • Salmon V. Salmon & Company Ltd (1895-95) ALL ER REP 33
  • Navichandra Kakubhai Radia v Kakubhai Kalidas and Co. Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1994)
  • Wk's Hardware Limited and Another v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 430 of 2023)
  • Chemusto Sirasi Arapbox and 3 Others v Kissa Julius Chemutai (Miscellaneous Application No. 123 of 2024)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol V. Bank of Uganda, SCCA No. of 1998

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tuwei Muhammad Kiprugu and Others v Eastern Uganda Agriculture Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 21 (21 January 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.