[2015] UGHCCD 25
The court held that there is no legal provision empowering it to reinstate a suit dismissed under Order 17 rule 6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution. The only remedy available to the plaintiff in such circumstances is to file a fresh suit, subject to the law of limitation, as provided under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] UGHCCD 25
- Parties
- Applicant: Ogwang Olebe Francis; Respondent: Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Cause No. 548 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Dismissed Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to be paid personally by applicant's counsel
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Limitation Periods
- 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
Ogwang Olebe Francis
Applicant
Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Dismissed Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a suit dismissed under Order 17 rule 6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules can be reinstated by the court.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement of Civil Suit No. 625 of 2004.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that there is no legal provision empowering it to reinstate a suit dismissed under Order 17 rule 6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution. The only remedy available to the plaintiff in such circumstances is to file a fresh suit, subject to the law of limitation, as provided under Order 17 rule 6 (2). The application was therefore misconceived, and the invocation of Order 9 rule 23 was inappropriate since it applies to dismissals under Order 9 rule 22, not under Order 17 rule 6 (1). The court found the application to be carelessly filed and dismissed it with costs to be borne personally by the applicant's counsel.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to be paid personally by applicant's counsel
Orders
- The application to reinstate Civil Suit No. 625 of 2004 is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are to be paid personally by the applicant's counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**
**CIVIL DIVISION**
**MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No. 548 OF 2012**
**(Arising from Civil Suit No. 625 of 2004)**
**OGWANG OLEBE FRANCIS :::::::::::::::: APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF**
* **VERSUS -**
**STANBIC BANK UGANDA LIMITED :: RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT**
**BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN MUSOTA**
**RULING**
This is an application brought by Notice of Motion to reinstate Civil Suit No. 625 of 2004 between the applicant as plaintiff and Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd as defendant and an order for costs. The suit was dismissed under Order 17 rule 6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules by Justice V. F. Musoke Kibuuka on 30th October 2009. This application is brought under S. 33 of the Judicature Act, S. 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, order 9 rule 23 and order 52 rule 1, 2 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Both Mr. Katumba for the applicant and Mr. Walukagga for the respondent filed written submissions in support of their respective cases. I have considered the application as a whole and the respective submissions. I have noted that the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 625 of 2004 was done by the learned Judge under Order 17 rule 6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules because the same had spent more than 2 years without any steps being taken by the parties to have it heard and determined.
There is no legal provision which mandates this court to reinstate a suit dismissed under such circumstances. The remedy for the plaintiff lies in Order 17 rule 6 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides that:
***“2. In such a case the plaintiff may subject to the law of Limitation bring a fresh suit”***
The dismissed suit under Order 17 rule 6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules cannot in law be reinstated. It is surprising that this application was brought inter alia under the whole Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules as if the suit had been wholly or partially dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules when only the defendant appeared and the plaintiff did not appear.
Consequently this application stands dismissed with costs. Because of the careless manner in which this application was filed, I will order that the costs be met by learned counsel personally.
**Stephen Musota**
**J U D G E**
**02.02.2015**
Mr. Walukagga for respondent present.
Court Clerk: Kauma Jolly.
**Court:-**
Ruling delivered by the Ag. Deputy Registrar Festo Nsenga, in the presence of Mr. Walukagga Isaac for the respondent this 2nd day of February, 2015.
**Festo Nsenga**
**Ag. DEPUTY REGISTRAR**
**02.02.2015.**