Wandera and Another v Mawazi Wandera and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2017)

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 where a suit is dismissed under O.26 r.2(1) CPR for failure to furnish security for costs, the proper remedy is an application to set aside the dismissal under O.26 r.2(2) CPR, not an appeal. An appeal lies only against an order rejecting such application under O.44 r.1(m) CPR. The appeal was incompetent but dismissed on merit. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in ordering security for costs after the suit had been dismissed for want of prosecution and subsequently dismissing the suit when the plaintiffs failed to comply for eight months.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as incompetent and on merit; trial court's dismissal of the suit upheld

Facts

The appellants sued the respondents in the Chief Magistrate's Court claiming beneficial ownership of land in Mbale District allegedly belonging to their late mother. The appellants alleged that the first respondent, their father, sold their mother's portion of land to the second and third respondents without their knowledge. The suit was initially dismissed for want of prosecution. On application for reinstatement, the trial magistrate ordered the appellants to pay UGX 1,000,000 as security for costs. The appellants failed to pay the security for approximately eight months, despite not challenging the order by review or appeal. The trial magistrate then dismissed the suit under O.26 r.2(1) CPR for failure to furnish security. The appellants appealed this dismissal to the High Court.

Issues

1. Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when she dismissed the suit for failure to deposit security for costs.
2. Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when she declined to hear and determine the suit on its merits.
3. Whether the appeal was competent or barred in law for failure to follow the statutory remedy under O.26 r.2(2) CPR.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed as incompetent for failure to follow the statutory remedy under O.26 r.2(2) CPR.
• Appeal dismissed on merit.
• Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Rules O.26 r.2(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.26 r.2(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.1(m)

Cases cited (2)

• Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga [2004] KALR 236
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (1999) 2 EA 24

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.

• A.K.T Project Management Limited & 2 Others v DFCU Bank Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application 2853 of 2023)

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