[1996] UGHC 14
The court held that the reasons advanced by the plaintiff for adjournment—being busy at work and the unexplained absence of witnesses—do not constitute sufficient cause under the Civil Procedure Rules. Granting adjournments on such grounds would undermine the progress of court work. As the plaintiff failed to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] UGHC 14
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Keren Bwomono; Defendant: Titus Kidega Lak; Defendant: The Co-operative Bank Ltd.
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Kereni v Kidega and 2 Others
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Application for Adjournment and Dismissal
- Outcome
- Application for adjournment dismissed; suit dismissed for lack of prosecution.
- Judges
- GM OKELLO, J
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment of Hearing, Court Discretion, Sufficient Cause, Dismissal for Nonappearance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Keren Bwomono
Plaintiff
Titus Kidega Lak
Defendant
The Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Application for Adjournment and Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has shown sufficient cause for adjournment of the hearing.
- 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the reasons advanced by the plaintiff for adjournment—being busy at work and the unexplained absence of witnesses—do not constitute sufficient cause under the Civil Procedure Rules. Granting adjournments on such grounds would undermine the progress of court work. As the plaintiff failed to provide adequate justification, the application for adjournment was dismissed. Consequently, the suit was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with costs awarded to the second and third defendants.
Court Disposition
Application for adjournment dismissed; suit dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Orders
- The application for adjournment is dismissed.
- The suit is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
THE REPUBLIC OE UGANDA
AT GUDU DISTRICT REGISTRY IN THE HIGH GOURD OE UGANDA
HIGH COURT CIVIL SUIT HO. MG 5/94
Keren! Bwomono Plaintiff.
versus
1. Titus Kidega Lak **(**
**2.** Defendants. I'/s Atare, Okwongali & Co., (Advocates)
3. The Co-operative Bank Ltd. **)**
BEFORE HOIT. HR . JUSTICE <sup>G</sup> . OKELL0.
## <sup>R</sup> <sup>U</sup> I, I IT <sup>G</sup> .
<sup>5</sup> Counsel for tile Plaintiff sought adjournment because he vzas unable to proceed as his witnesses were not present. The reason he advanced for the request was mainly that the Plaintiff who is an employee in the President's Office, was in charge of a Communication Section of that office and was therefore unable to leave the office as he was alone in 'that section. That his colleague was currently sick. Another subsidiary reason was that the Plaintiff's other witnesses from Kitgum were also not present though they were notified. Counsel for the Plaintiff prayed that the case be adjourned to another date possibly when the Plaintiff's sick colleague recovers from his sickness. When this case was called for hearing at the adjourned date of 26/4/96
I<r. Atare opposed the application for adjournment arguing him. In Counsel's view court was not to be conducted at the convenience of an individual. that no sufficient cause was shown by the applicant to justify grant of adjournment. According to Er. Atare, the Plaintiff was asking court to adjourn 'the case until when it vzas convenient to
It is worth pointing out that adjournment is <sup>a</sup> natter of discretion of the court. Under 0.15 r <sup>1</sup> of the CPPl, such discretion is exercised in favour of the applicant where sufficient
cause is shown. the reason advanced for the request for adjournment were two:- One that the Plaintiff was too busy to leave his office. Being too busy in one's place of work was no sufficient cause to justify grant of adjournment. If that were **so,** no court work would progress as every body would be too busy at his respective place of work. In the instant case<sup>5</sup>
**2**
The second reason was that the Plaintiff<sup>1</sup> s other witnesses did not appear though they were notified. That is also no sufficient cause to justify grant of adjournment without knowing the cause of the failure. it is clear that the Plaintiff applicant has net advanced sufficient cause to justidy granting him adjournment. The application is therefore dismissed and the suit is dismissed under 0 9 r 19 of the CPR with cost to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. Por the reasons given above,
**p** *-I* G. M. Okolio
Judge 26/4/1956.