Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Anywar and Another v Alioma and 3 Others (Civil Suit 27 of 2015) [2023] UGHCCD 310 (16 October 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that substituted service of the hearing notice was properly effected by affixing the notice to the High Court, Gulu Notice Board as ordered. Despite this, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants, nor their respective counsel, appeared for the hearing. Given the absence of both parties and the existence of case backlog, the court exercised its discretion under Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for non-appearance. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, as no party took steps to prosecute or defend the matter after proper service was confirmed.

Court disposition

suit dismissed for non-appearance of parties

Orders

  • Civil Suit No. 27/2015 is hereby dismissed under Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71-1 for non-appearance of the parties.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Mrs. Christine Anywar

Plaintiff

Rose Alilo

Plaintiff

Mr. Christopher Alioma

Defendant

Mr. Leni Gilbert Boniface

Defendant

Andama Martin

Defendant

The Red Pepper Publications Ltd

Defendant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Suit / Ruling on Non Appearance and Dismissal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
No arguments were presented by the plaintiffs or their counsel as they were absent at the hearing.
Respondent
No arguments were presented by the defendants or their counsel as they were absent at the hearing.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71-1

    A suit may be dismissed for non-appearance of parties if proper service has been effected.

  2. 02

    Order 5 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71-1

    Substituted service is valid if the hearing notice is affixed to the court notice board as ordered by the court.

  3. 03

    Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 016/2014: Bitamisi Namuddu Vs. Rwabuganda Godfrey

    Dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate where there is case backlog and no party appears to prosecute or defend the suit.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that substituted service of the hearing notice was properly effected by affixing the notice to the High Court, Gulu Notice Board as ordered. Despite this, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants, nor their respective counsel, appeared for the hearing. Given the absence of both parties and the existence of case backlog, the court exercised its discretion under Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for non-appearance. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, as no party took steps to prosecute or defend the matter after proper service was confirmed.

Obiter and limits

  • The court noted the lack of feedback from the mediation process and the prolonged inactivity on the file, contributing to the backlog.
  • The court emphasized the importance of parties and counsel attending court when properly served, especially in backlog cases.

Court disposition

suit dismissed for non-appearance of parties

  • Civil Suit No. 27/2015 is hereby dismissed under Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71-1 for non-appearance of the parties.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Source and reliance status

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2023] UGHCCD 310

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT GULU

CIVIL SUIT No. 027 OF 2015

1. MRS. CHRISTINE ANYWAR

2. ROSE ALILO

PLAINTIFFS

Versus

- 1. MR. CHRISTOPHER ALIOMA - 2. MR. LENI GILBERT BONIFACE - 3. ANDAMA MARTIN

4. THE RED PEPPER PUBLICATIONS LTD DEFENDANTS

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PHILIP W. MWAKA

RULING.

- [1]. This Ruling arises from the proceedings of the Court on the 16<sup>th</sup> October, 2023 when the suit was fixed for hearing before the Court. Neither the Plaintiffs and their Counsel nor the Defendants and their Counsel were present. - [2]. Prior to the date of hearing, on the 26<sup>th</sup> September, 2023 the Court had ordered that service of Court process be effected on the Parties by way of Substituted Service under *Order 5 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules*, SI 71-1 and that the Hearing Notice is affixed to the High Court, Gulu Notice Board. - [3]. On the Court Record was an Affidavit of Service deponed by Mr. Manano Davis, the Court Clerk, on the 16<sup>th</sup> October, 2023 in proof of service on the Parties. The Court undertook enquiry into the effectiveness of the service of the Hearing Notice and accordingly the contents of the Affidavit of Service were duly read Verbatim for purposes of the Court Record and to enable a determination by the Court on the manner in which to proceed.

- [4]. The contents of the Affidavit of Service were to the effect that Pursuant to the Order of the Court on the 26<sup>th</sup> September, 2023 the Hearing Notice was duly extracted under the supervision of the Deputy Registrar. As directed, he affixed the Hearing Notice to the Court Notice Board of the High Court, Gulu on the 29<sup>th</sup> September, 2023 and it is still affixed thereto todate. - [5]. A copy of the Hearing Notice which was affixed to the High Court, Gulu Notice Board is Attached to the Affidavit of Service and marked Annexture " $A$ " as the Return of Service. - [6]. A review of the Court Record indicates that the suit is founded in Libel and Defamation with prayers for damages, injunctions and other remedies. The Plaint was filed on the 2<sup>nd</sup> July, 2015. The 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant filed its Written Statement of Defence on the 4<sup>th</sup> August, 2015 and the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants filed their Written Statement of Defence on the 16<sup>th</sup> July, 2015. - [7]. On the 23<sup>rd</sup> May, 2019 the Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru referred the matter to Mediation with the Deputy Registrar appointed Mediator. There is no feedback on the Mediation on the Court file by way of a Mediation Report.

See: The Judicature (Mediation) Rules SI 10/2013.

[8]. The last proceedings before the Court were had on the 18<sup>th</sup> March, 2020 when the matter was adjourned to the 6<sup>th</sup> July, 2020 for hearing. No further proceedings were taken thereafter.

Decision of the Court.

[9]. Having scrutinized the Affidavit of Service, the Court is satisfied that service was duly effected on the Parties by way of Substituted Service whereby the Hearing Notice was duly affixed to the High Court, Gulu Notice Board from the date of issuance on the 29<sup>th</sup> September, 2023 to date. Nonetheless, the Parties and their Counsel are all absent.

See: Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 016/2014: Bitamisi Namuddu Vs. Rwabuganda Godfrey.

- $[10]$ . Further, having regard to the circumstances of this suit which constitutes case backlog, the Court hereby dismisses the suit under *Order 9 Rule 17* of the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71-1 for non-appearance of the parties. - Each Party shall bear its own costs. $[11]$ .

Orders of the Court.

$[12]$ . Accordingly, the Court makes the following Orders: -

- 1. Civil Suit No. 27/2015 is hereby dismissed under *Order 9 Rule 17 of* the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71-1 for non-appearance of the Parties. - 2. Each Party shall bear its own costs.

It is so ordered.

Signed, Dated and Delivered at the High Court, Gulu this 16<sup>th</sup> day of October, 2023.

$\frac{1}{16.10.2023}$

Philp W. Mwaka

Acting Judge of the High Court.

Delivery and Attendance.

Ruling delivered in Court on the 16<sup>th</sup> day of October, 2023.

- 1. The Plaintiff is Absent. - 2. Counsel for the Plaintiff is Absent. - 3. The Defendants are Absent. - 4. Counsel for the Defendants are Absent.

5. Court Clerk, Mr. Manano Davis, is Present.

$\frac{1}{6.10.2023}$

Philip W. Mwaka

Acting Judge of the High Court.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 016/2014: Bitamisi Namuddu Vs. Rwabuganda Godfrey

Case cited

Order 5 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71-1

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71-1

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

The Judicature (Mediation) Rules SI 10/2013

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.