[2011] UGHC 23

[2011] UGHC 23

The court found that since September 2007, no application or step had been taken by the plaintiff to prosecute the suit, despite the claim being for a substantial sum. The court rejected the argument that judicial insufficiency or a recent change of advocates constituted sufficient cause for the delay. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] UGHC 23
Parties
Plaintiff: Kampala International University Ltd; Defendant: Tororo Cement Ltd; Defendant: Uganda Revenue Authority; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Application No. 0433 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
Madrama J
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 6 Civil Procedure Rules, Temporary Injunction, Case Backlog, Change of Advocates
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Order 17 Rule 6 Civil Procedure Rules Temporary Injunction Case Backlog Change of Advocates

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kampala International University Ltd

Plaintiff

Tororo Cement Ltd

Defendant

Uganda Revenue Authority

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient cause was shown for the plaintiff's failure to take steps to prosecute the suit for over two years.
  3. 3 Whether the change of advocates and recent instructions to new counsel constitute sufficient cause to avoid dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that since September 2007, no application or step had been taken by the plaintiff to prosecute the suit, despite the claim being for a substantial sum. The court rejected the argument that judicial insufficiency or a recent change of advocates constituted sufficient cause for the delay. The court emphasized that parties must show diligence in prosecuting their claims and that the Commercial Court is expected to deliver speedy justice. The instruction of new counsel on the morning of the hearing did not excuse the previous period of inactivity. Exercising discretion under Order 17 rule 6(1) CPR, the court held that no sufficient cause had been shown and dismissed the suit...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed with costs for want of prosecution.