Wakilii

Uniworks Transporters and Logistics Uganda Limited v Shimizu Konoike Joint Venture [2026] UGHCLD 115

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to review and set aside an order dismissing the head suit, and to stay execution and taxation arising from that order
Decision
Application for review and setting aside of the dismissal order rejected with costs; the dismissal of the head suit stands

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

The High Court dismissed an application to review and set aside an order striking out a suit for abuse of process. The applicant had failed to file a joint scheduling memorandum and joint trial bundle within the time fixed by court. The court held that the pendency of a ruling in an interlocutory application (HCMA 1225 of 2023) had no bearing on the pre-trial scheduling proceedings, which were deliberately fixed to precede and inform that ruling, and therefore disclosed no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record within Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application failed to meet the conditions of Order 46 and was rejected with costs under Order 46 r.3(1).

Outcome

Application for review and setting aside of the dismissal order rejected with costs; the dismissal of the head suit stands

Facts

Uniworks sued Shimizu - Konoike Joint Venture in the head suit for alleged trespass, claiming it was a tenant of Uganda Railways Corporation and that the respondent had excavated a trench, dumped waste soil and construction materials, and installed road cabs on the suit land. The respondent asserted it was executing a contract with Uganda National Roads Authority for the Kampala Flyover Construction and Road Upgrading project, and that the land used to upgrade an existing drainage channel lay within the project right of way. On 7 November 2023 the court set timelines for filing a joint scheduling memorandum and joint trial bundle within four months, and for submissions in a pending interlocutory application, HCMA 1225 of 2023. Uniworks did not comply. On 9 April 2024 the court dismissed the head suit for abuse of process; counsel then present sought more time without explaining the non-compliance. Uniworks applied to review and set aside that dismissal, contending it was made in error because a ruling in HCMA 1225 of 2023 was still pending. Counsel for the applicant was again absent when the review application was called on 14 April 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient cause was shown to warrant review and setting aside of the order dismissing the head suit and the grant of the other orders sought.
  2. Whether the pendency of a ruling in an interlocutory application rendered the dismissal of the head suit an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • The application fails to meet the conditions stated in Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules and is rejected.
  • Costs awarded against the applicant under Order 46 rule 3(1).

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Orders — Error or Mistake Apparent on the Face of the Record under Order 46 CPR
An order may be reviewed and set aside under Order 46 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules only where a ground specified in those rules exists, such as a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error apparent on the face of the order or decree; dissatisfaction with a properly made order is not such a ground.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Abuse of Process — Effect of a Pending Interlocutory Application
The pendency of a ruling in an interlocutory application does not preclude dismissal of the main suit for non-compliance with pre-trial directions, and does not render such dismissal an error apparent on the record, particularly where the pre-trial scheduling proceedings were fixed to precede and inform the determination of that interlocutory application.
Civil Procedure — Pre-Trial Scheduling — Duty of Diligence and Compliance with Court Timelines
Parties and their counsel bear a duty to comply with court-ordered timelines for filing a joint scheduling memorandum and joint trial bundle, and to follow up on proceedings conducted in their absence; dilatory conduct that disrupts the process of court justifies dismissal of the suit, as courts burdened with backlog cannot continue adjourning matters on account of litigants' unpreparedness.

Legislation cited (5)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uniworks Transporters and Logistics Uganda Limited v Shimizu Konoike Joint Venture [2026] UGHCLD 115 (17 April 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.