[2025] UGCommC 205
The court found that the parties failed to appear for the hearing despite being duly notified, and had not taken any further steps necessary to advance the case since its reinstatement. This constituted a failure to prosecute the suit. In light of the judiciary's backlog and the need for expeditious disposal of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] UGCommC 205
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Western Cables Uganda Limited; Defendant: Juliet Namuli Asiya; Defendant: Kimbowa Robert; Defendant: Westerner Cables Company (U) Ltd; Defendant: Kimbowa Kenneth Suubi Sembatya; Defendant: Tendo Eliana; Defendant: Kirabo Cynthia; Defendant: Uganda Registration Services Bureau; Defendant: DFCU Bank Ltd; Defendant: PKF Uganda
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Suit No: 522 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Non Appearance
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- Susan Odongo, J
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Non Appearance, Case Backlog Management, Order 17 Rule 4, Company Law Disputes
- 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
Western Cables Uganda Limited
Plaintiff
Juliet Namuli Asiya
Defendant
Kimbowa Robert
Defendant
Westerner Cables Company (U) Ltd
Defendant
Kimbowa Kenneth Suubi Sembatya
Defendant
Tendo Eliana
Defendant
Kirabo Cynthia
Defendant
Uganda Registration Services Bureau
Defendant
DFCU Bank Ltd
Defendant
PKF Uganda
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Non Appearance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance of parties at the hearing.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to determine the suit in the absence of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the parties failed to appear for the hearing despite being duly notified, and had not taken any further steps necessary to advance the case since its reinstatement. This constituted a failure to prosecute the suit. In light of the judiciary's backlog and the need for expeditious disposal of cases, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. The court emphasized that adherence to procedural timelines is essential and that parties must diligently prosecute their matters to avoid unnecessary consumption of judicial resources.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
### 5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO: 0522 OF 2019
# 10 WESTERN CABLES UGANDA LIMITED ======== PLAINTIFF
#### VERSUS
1. JULIET NAMULI ASIYA 15 2. KIMBOWA ROBERT 3. WESTERNER CABLES COMPANY (U) LTD 4. KIMBOWA KENNETH SUUBI SEMBATYA 5. TENDO ELIANA 6. KIRABO CYNTHIA 20 7. UGANDA REGISTRATION SERVICES BUREAU 8. DFCU BANK LTD 9. PKF UGANDA=======================DEFENDANT
## BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE SUSAN ODONGO
## 25 RULING
The Plaintiff filed this suit for various declaratory and financial orders against the defendants related to unlawful incorporation of a company with intention to defraud the plaintiff.
This suit was dismissed on 11th November 2020 for want of prosecution and reinstated on 4 th November 2022. This matter was cause listed for 19th 30 June 2025 and the cause list widely circulated. Hearing notice was issued via ECCMIS. However, when this matter was called on for hearing, the parties did not appear.
It goes without saying that the judiciary is currently burdened by a backlog of cases, and courts have adopted a stricter stance regarding adherence to timelines
35 established to facilitate the expeditious disposal of cases. When a suit is called on by the court for hearing or for any related matter, it is incumbent upon parties
5 to respond punctually and diligently to prosecute their matter, failure to do so results in the unnecessary consumption of the court's valuable time.
Therefore, where parties default in taking actions necessary to facilitate the expeditious progression of the case, Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, S. I. 17-1 guides the Court on how to proceed. The provision states;
- 10 *Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his or her evidence, or to cause the attendance of his or her witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the court may, notwithstanding that default, proceed to decide the suit immediately. (emphasis mine).* - 15 The performance of any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, may comprise, filing necessary documents, complying with procedural orders, attending hearings. The determination of the suit, forthwith, is a matter within the Court's discretion that lies with court.
Notably, since this suit was filed in 2019, it, undoubtedly, forms part of case 20 backlog. In this case, the parties' failure to appear when the suit was called on
for hearing constitutes a failure to take any further steps necessary to advance the case. An act proper for the exercise by this court of the discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of The Civil Procedure Rules.
Thus, there being no appearance by the parties, I hereby dismiss this suit 25 pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
I so order.
