[2017] UGHCLD 361

[2017] UGHCLD 361

The court found that neither the applicants nor their counsel provided sufficient evidence of illness to justify their non-attendance. Both failed to attend court and did not substantiate their claims beyond bare affidavits. The court held that the applicants and their counsel were guilty of dilatory conduct and did not approach the court with clean hands. As a result, there was no sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal or reinstate the suit. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] UGHCLD 361
Parties
Applicant: Moses Aburek; Applicant: Ojagole Lenny; Applicant: Aarorwa Badi; Applicant: Joyce Akol Aburek t/a Atek Farmers; Respondent: Shyam V. Kanabar
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
6 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
Kawesa, J
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal for Nonattendance, Sufficient Cause, Client Advocate Relationship
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Reinstatement of Suit Dismissal for Nonattendance Sufficient Cause Client Advocate Relationship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moses Aburek

Applicant

Ojagole Lenny

Applicant

Aarorwa Badi

Applicant

Joyce Akol Aburek t/a Atek Farmers

Applicant

Shyam V. Kanabar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether counsel's failure to attend court on grounds of illness amounts to sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither the applicants nor their counsel provided sufficient evidence of illness to justify their non-attendance. Both failed to attend court and did not substantiate their claims beyond bare affidavits. The court held that the applicants and their counsel were guilty of dilatory conduct and did not approach the court with clean hands. As a result, there was no sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal or reinstate the suit. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to set aside the order of dismissal and reinstate the suit is dismissed.
  • Applicants to pay costs of the application.