Share
Arab Contractors v Otai (Miscellaneous Application 58 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 241 (22 August 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] UGHCCD 241
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Adonyo, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 58 of 2023
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Adonyo, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 58 of 2023
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application to set aside the order dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 0026 of 2023 was rendered moot because the underlying suit had already been dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the plaintiff and counsel on the scheduled date for formal proof. The court found that the absence indicated a lack of interest or evidence to adduce, and as such, the matter was dismissed with no order as to costs. The application was therefore overtaken by events and had no legal consequence.
Court disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- This application is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Arab Contractors
Applicant Counsel: Okiror, Ourum & Co. AdvocatesOtai John Michael
Respondent Counsel: Latigo & Co. Advocates03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the order dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 0026 of 2023 should be set aside.
- 02
Whether Civil Suit No. 0002 of 2021 should proceed inter parte.
- 03
Whether costs should be awarded to the applicant.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought to set aside the order dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 0026 of 2023, arguing that the suit should proceed inter parte and that costs should be provided for. The grounds were contained in the application and supporting affidavit.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposed the application, filing an affidavit in reply and written submissions, maintaining that the proceedings had been overtaken by events and the application was of no consequence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 98 Civil Procedure Act; Order 52 rules 1, 2 & 3 Civil Procedure Rules
Court may set aside ex parte orders where sufficient cause is shown and justice demands.
- 02
Civil Procedure Act
Matters dismissed for non-prosecution may not be revived unless proper procedure is followed and sufficient cause is demonstrated.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application to set aside the order dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 0026 of 2023 was rendered moot because the underlying suit had already been dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the plaintiff and counsel on the scheduled date for formal proof. The court found that the absence indicated a lack of interest or evidence to adduce, and as such, the matter was dismissed with no order as to costs. The application was therefore overtaken by events and had no legal consequence.
Obiter and limits
- The absence of the plaintiff and counsel on the date fixed for formal proof signified a loss of interest or lack of evidence to adduce.
- No order as to costs was made due to the circumstances of the dismissal.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- This application is accordingly dismissed with no order as to 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Judgment
The Republic of Uganda In The High Court of Uganda at Soroti Miscellaneous Application No. 0058 of 2023 (Arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 0026 of 2023) (All arising from Civil Suit No. 0002 of 2021)
$\mathsf{S}$
Arab Contractors ============================= Applicant
Versus
=================== Respondent Otai John Michael ============ 15
Before: Hon. Justice Dr Henry Peter Adonyo
Ruling
This is an application by way of Notice of motion brought under section 98
- of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 52 rules 1,2&3 of the Civil Procedure 20 Rules for orders that the order dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 0026 of 2023 seeking to set aside the order issued on the 21<sup>st</sup> day of January 2023 allowing the respondent to proceed ex-parte be set aside and Civil Suit No. 0002 of 2021 proceeds inter parte and costs of this application - be provided for. 25
The grounds of the application are contained in the application and affidavit in support, the respondent filed his affidavit in reply.
The applicant was represented by M/s Okiror, Ourum & Co. Advocates while the respondent was represented by M/s Latigo & Co. Advocates who
proceeded by way of written submissions. 30
- $\mathsf{S}$ This application is essentially concerned with the proceeding of CS 0002/2021 ex-parte as ordered by this court on the $21^{st}$ day of January 2023. On the 13/04/2023 counsel for the plaintiff Ms. Alice Latigo in the absence of the defendants and their counsel prayed that the suit proceeds *ex parte* and be set for formal proof. - Court noted that on 14/03/2023 counsel for the defendants and the 10 defendants were present in court when the date was set for scheduling, given that no reason for their absence was given court agreed that the matter should proceed for formal proof after an interlocutory judgement had been entered. - The $13/07/2023$ was agreed on as the date for formal proof, however, on 15 this date neither the plaintiff nor counsel entered appearance. On 13/04/2023 the plaintiff and counsel who had fixed the matter for formal proof on 13/07/2023 did not turn up and no reason was given. Court found that the absence of the plaintiff and counsel signified their loss - of interest in proceeding or that the plaintiff had no evidence to adduce 20 and as such the matter was accordingly dismissed due to non-prosecution with no order as to costs.
This being the case this application has been taken over by events and as such is of no consequence.
This application is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 25 I so order.
Adonyo, J $22<sup>nd</sup>$ August 2023
$\overline{2}$
30
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.