Wakilii

Uganda Development Bank v National Insurance Corporation,G.M Combined (Civil Appeal 28 of 1995)

Supreme Court · [1996] UGSC 5 · 1996 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution under Order 14 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Appeal allowed; order dismissing the suit set aside and the suit remitted to the High Court for hearing by another judge.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 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.

Good law Followed in 2 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations steady — 10 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. 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 Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It held that the trial judge had improperly exercised his discretion in refusing the appellant a short adjournment to file an application for security for costs, the application having effectively been overtaken by events. Dismissal of a suit under Order 14 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules is the severest of the available options and should be resorted to sparingly, normally as a last alternative, particularly where the party itself was not personally responsible for the refusal to proceed. The judge should have adjourned the suit rather than dismiss it. The order dismissing the suit was set aside and the suit remitted to the High Court for hearing by another judge.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; order dismissing the suit set aside and the suit remitted to the High Court for hearing by another judge.

Facts

The appellant, a statutory corporation, sued the respondents in the High Court to recover US$290,600, the first respondent being guarantor and the second respondent borrower. The second respondent was later joined and filed a defence and counterclaim, to which the appellant replied. The suit was fixed for hearing on 7 and 8 June 1995. On 7 June the appellant's counsel sought a two-hour adjournment to file an application for security for costs against the second respondent's counterclaim. The judge reserved his ruling to the next day; meanwhile counsel filed the security-for-costs application. On 8 June the judge refused the adjournment and ordered the hearing to proceed. Counsel, on his client's instructions pending an intended appeal, declined to proceed, whereupon the judge dismissed the suit with costs under Order 14 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal against the refusal of an adjournment was competent where no separate order granting leave to appeal had been extracted.
  2. Whether the trial judge exercised his discretion judicially in refusing the appellant's application for a short adjournment to file an application for security for costs.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in proceeding with the hearing of the suit despite having granted leave to appeal against the interlocutory order.
  4. Whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the suit for want of prosecution under Order 14 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Order dismissing the suit set aside.
  • Order adjourning the suit substituted in its place.
  • Suit remitted to the High Court for hearing by another judge.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Order refusing adjournment and order dismissing suit made on same day
Where an order refusing an adjournment and an order dismissing the suit are made on the same occasion and are reflected in a single extracted order, an appeal against the dismissal entitles the appellant to argue grounds relating to the refusal of the adjournment, and no separate order granting leave to appeal need be extracted.
Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Appellate interference with judicial discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's exercise of discretion unless satisfied that the judge misdirected himself and thereby arrived at a wrong decision, or that it is manifest the judge was clearly wrong so that injustice resulted; a mere difference of opinion is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Security for costs — Plaintiff as defendant to a counterclaim
A plaintiff served with a defence containing a counterclaim becomes a defendant to that counterclaim and is subject to the incidents attaching to any defendant, including the entitlement to apply for security for costs.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal for want of prosecution — Order 14 rule 19 — Discretion
Dismissal of a suit under Order 14 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules where an advocate fails to call evidence is the severest of the available options and should be resorted to sparingly and normally as a last alternative, especially where the party is not personally responsible for the refusal to proceed; an adjournment with costs is ordinarily the proper course.
Civil Procedure — Duty of counsel — Drawing the court's attention to a pending application
It is incumbent on an advocate to draw the trial judge's attention to the existence of any cause or matter in the court room or registry likely to affect the decision in the case being heard; a judge cannot be criticised on appeal for failing to act on an application of which he was not made aware.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.14 r.19
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.14 r.20
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.8 r.12

Cases cited (10)

  • Attorney General v Sengendo [1972] EA
  • Serajevo Vs. Muturi
  • M.B. Patel v R. Gottfried (1953) 20 EACA
  • H.K. Shah v Osman Allu (1947) 14 EACA 45
  • Famous Cycle Agencies & Another v M.R. Kurial (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1994)
  • Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93
  • Yahaya Kiriisa (supra)
  • Jetha v Singh (1931) 13 LRK 1
  • Devji v Jinabhai (1934) 1 EACA 87
  • Mot v Chanchalbhai (1915/1916) 6 EALR 1

Cases citing this judgment (10)

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.

Uganda Development Bank v National Insurance Corporation,G.M Combined (Civil Appeal 28 of 1995) [1996] UGSC 5 (29 June 1996)
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.