[2014] UGHCLD 30

[2014] UGHCLD 30

The court held that where a suit is dismissed under Order 17 r.6(1) CPR for want of prosecution, the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to file a fresh suit, subject to the law of limitation. The permissive language of sub-rule (2) does not create an alternative remedy of reinstatement where limitation has set in. The inherent power of the court under Section 98 CPA cannot be invoked to override statutory limitation or to revive a suit that is statute barred. The dismissal under Order 17 r.6(1) CPR and Section 17(2) of the Judicature Act constitutes a final decree, and the only recourse is by way of appeal. The application for reinstatement was therefore incompetent and dismissed...

Citation
[2014] UGHCLD 30
Parties
Applicant: Kibugumu Patrick alias Munakukaama; Respondent: Aisha Mulungi; Respondent: Basajjabalaba Hassan
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
19 September 2014
Case Number
Miscelaneous Application No. 455 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
Bashaija, J
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Limitation of Actions, Inherent Jurisdiction, Trespass to Land
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Reinstatement of Suit Limitation of Actions Inherent Jurisdiction Trespass to Land

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kibugumu Patrick alias Munakukaama

Applicant

Aisha Mulungi

Respondent

Basajjabalaba Hassan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court can invoke its inherent power to allow reinstatement of a suit dismissed under Order 17 r 6(1) CPR, if to file a fresh suit by the plaintiff would be time barred.
  2. 2 Whether an order of dismissal of a suit under Order 17 r.6 (1) CPR and Section 17(2) Judicature Act (Cap 13) constitutes a final decree.
  3. 3 What are the remedies available to the parties?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that where a suit is dismissed under Order 17 r.6(1) CPR for want of prosecution, the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to file a fresh suit, subject to the law of limitation. The permissive language of sub-rule (2) does not create an alternative remedy of reinstatement where limitation has set in. The inherent power of the court under Section 98 CPA cannot be invoked to override statutory limitation or to revive a suit that is statute barred. The dismissal under Order 17 r.6(1) CPR and Section 17(2) of the Judicature Act constitutes a final decree, and the only recourse is by way of appeal. The application for reinstatement was therefore incompetent and dismissed...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to set aside the order of dismissal and reinstate Civil Suit No. 505 of 2004 is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of this application to the respondents.