[2002] UGHC 136
The court found that Civil Suit No. 96/1993 was indeed on the cause list for 18th June 1998, contrary to the applicant's assertion. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance as required under Order 9 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Additionally, the respondent's affidavit was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] UGHC 136
- Parties
- Applicant: Lagoro Holdings Ltd; Respondent: Transami (U) Ltd
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- MISC. APP. NO. 470 OF 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to respondent
- Judges
- Arach-Amoko, J
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Dismissal, Non Appearance, Affidavit Defects, Cause List Procedure
- 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
Lagoro Holdings Ltd
Applicant
Transami (U) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 96/1993 should be set aside for want of sufficient cause for non-appearance by the applicant's counsel.
- 2 Whether the supporting affidavit for the respondent is valid under Section 8 of the Oaths Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Civil Suit No. 96/1993 was indeed on the cause list for 18th June 1998, contrary to the applicant's assertion. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance as required under Order 9 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Additionally, the respondent's affidavit was disregarded for being incurably defective under Section 8 of the Oaths Act. The absence of sufficient cause for the applicant's counsel's non-appearance meant the application to set aside the dismissal lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to respondent
Orders
- The application to set aside the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 96/1993 is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
DRAFT 470 98
*f*
#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
### MISC, APPL NO.470 98
(Arising From Civil Suit No.96 93)
LAGORO HOLDINGS LTD APPLICANT
## VERSUS
TANSAMI HOLDINGS (U) LTD RESPONDENT
BEFORE: S, ARACH-AMOKO THE HON. LADY JUSTICE M.
# RULING :
This is an application by Notice of Motion under Order 9 Rule 20 and Order 48 Rules l'-\*and <sup>3</sup> of the Civil Procedure Rules, for order that:-
1) the dismissal of Civil Suit No.96/1993 be set aside
2) the costs of the application be costs in the cause.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Kinyera P'lodi, counsel for the applicant sworn on the 23rd of June 1998.
*Slrv* O /" C-Mr. John Mary Mugisha, learned counsel for the Respondent sw/e on- cXn
CERTIFIER. DEPUTY REGISTRAR IRECT affidavit in reply on behalf of the Respondent. The said affidavit does not bear a date of swearing. It therefore contravenes Section 8 of the Oaths Act which provides that:-
> Every Commissioner for Oaths or notary public $18$ before whom any Oath or affidavit is taken or made under this Act shall state truly in the Jurat or attestation at what place and on what date the Oath or affidavit is taken or made."
An affidavit which does not comply with Section 8 of the Oaths Act See: - Jeddy is incurably defective and the court cannot rely on it. Namazzi-vs- Assesibo (1986) HCB 58. and Haji Yusuf<br>Luyonubo-vs- Masaba Co-operative Union CS No 487/94. The main ground for the application is that Civil Suit No 96 $\ell$ /1993 was not cause listed for hearing on the 18th June 1998, that is why counsel for Applicant/Plaintiff was absent in court when the case was dismissed.
In order for an application to succeed under Order 9 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rule, the applicant must satisfy court that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance. See Order 9 Rule 20 and Teddy Namarzi Teddr Hamazsi to Bibo - Bibo - Bibo - Bibo and $supra)$ .
In this particular case I have checked $\bullet$ the cause-list of 18.6.1998 HCCS No.96/1993 - Lagoro Holdings vs Tansami (U) Ltd
$\overline{2}$ CERTIFIED-CORRECT DEPUTY REGISTRAR
was on the Cause List of that date on page 5. It was Cause-listed as the second suit before the Hon. Justice Akiiki Kiiza (Ag) as he then was.
It is not therefore true to say that the suit was not on the causelist . In the circumstances, since no sufficient cause for the Applicant's counsel's before this court. merit I find that the application has no
The application is accordingly dismissed with costs Respondent.
Hon. M. S. Arach-Amoko
JUDGE .
/
### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
## IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
## **MISC. APP. NO. 470 OF 1998 (Arising from Civil Suit No. 96/93)**
**LAGORO HOLDING LTD APPLICANT**
**VERSUS**
**TRANSAMI (U) LTD RESPONDENT**
#### **ORDER**
This application coming this 13lh day ofJuly 2002 before the Honourable Lady Justice M. S. Arach Amoko for final disposal in the presence of Kinyera P'Lodi, counsel for the applicant and J. M Mugisha, counsel for the respondent.
IT IS ORDERED that the application be and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
GIVEN under my hand and the seal ofthe Court this 13<sup>111</sup> d lily; 2000.
**DEP** Y **REGISTRAR**
**i**
I
**7**
I
i