Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Byamukama v Sebambulidde and 9 Others (Miscellaneous Application 121 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 122 (25 September 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the applicant provided a justifiable reason for absence at the time of dismissal, specifically the delay caused by court security, and demonstrated continued interest in pursuing the suit. The cause of action involves allegations of fraud and irregularities on land, which merit determination on their merits. The court held that it is in the interest of justice to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate Civil Suit No.034 of 2021 for hearing interparties. Costs are to be considered in the main suit.

Court disposition

application_granted

Orders

  • The order dismissing Civil Suit No.034 of 2021 is set aside.
  • Civil Suit No.034 of 2021 is reinstated and shall be heard interparties.
  • Costs to be considered in the main suit.

02

Material facts

Parties

Byamukama Jovenna

Applicant Counsel: JP Baingana & Associated Advocates

Sebambulidde Haruna

Respondent

Nansubuga Sarah & Emilly Nabatanzi (Administrators of the estate of the late Nsubuga Luki)

Respondent

Masaba Gabudyelo

Respondent

Nkwaga Musoke Robert

Respondent

Nalunga Birigenda

Respondent

Peter Semanda Birigenda

Respondent

Wasswa Geofrey

Respondent

Muganga Lameck

Respondent

Kanoonya Isma

Respondent

Commissioner for Land Registration

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that the dismissal of Civil Suit No.034 of 2021 should be set aside because the cause of action involves fraud and irregularities on land, which ought to be disposed of on its merits. The applicant's advocate was present at court in time but was delayed by the security detail of the judges, resulting in missing the hearing. The applicant maintains interest in pursuing the right to property as administrator of the estate of the late Especto Ssenyigo. It is in the interest of justice that the suit be reinstated and heard on its merits.
Respondent
The respondents did not file a formal reply or appear to contest the application. No substantive arguments from the respondents are recorded in the ruling.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act

    Court has inherent power to set aside dismissal orders where sufficient cause is shown and to reinstate suits to be heard on their merits.

  2. 02

    Order 9 Rule 23 and Order 52 Rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules

    Procedural rules should not override substantive justice; parties should be given an opportunity to be heard unless there is willful default.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the applicant provided a justifiable reason for absence at the time of dismissal, specifically the delay caused by court security, and demonstrated continued interest in pursuing the suit. The cause of action involves allegations of fraud and irregularities on land, which merit determination on their merits. The court held that it is in the interest of justice to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate Civil Suit No.034 of 2021 for hearing interparties. Costs are to be considered in the main suit.

Obiter and limits

  • Procedural delays caused by court administration should not prejudice substantive rights of litigants.
  • The right to be heard is fundamental and should be protected unless there is clear evidence of abandonment or willful default.

Court disposition

application_granted

  • The order dismissing Civil Suit No.034 of 2021 is set aside.
  • Civil Suit No.034 of 2021 is reinstated and shall be heard interparties.
  • Costs to be considered in the main suit.

Source and reliance status

High Court of 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

High Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2023] UGHC 122

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MUKONO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.121 OF 2023 ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.034 OF 2021

BYAMUKAMA JOVENNA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

VERSUS

1. SEBAMBULIDDE HARUNA

2. NANSUBUGA SARAH & EMILLY NABATANZI (Administrators of the estate of the late Nsubuga Luki)

3. MASABA GABUDYELO

4. NKWAGA MUSOKE ROBERT

5. NALUNGA BIRIGENDA

6. PETER SEMANDA BIRIGENDA

7. WASSWA GEOFREY

8. MUGANGA LAMECK

9. KANOONYA ISMA

10. COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REGISTRATION::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE JAQUELINE MWONDHA

RULING

This was an application brought before me by the applicant's Counsel M/s JP Baingana & Associated Advocates. It was brought

Whenods.

under 0.9 r 23 and order 52 r 1& 3 of the CPR and Section 98 of the CPA. It sought for orders as follows;

- 1. The order dismissing Civil Suit No. 034 of 2021 to be set aside. - 2. That the order reinstating Civil Suit No.034 of 2021 to be heard and determined on its merits. - 3. Costs to be provided.

The application was supported by the affidavit of the applicant Byamukama Jovenna, the applicant's grounds briefly are;

- 1. The cause of the action is fraud and orelugulaities on the land which ought to be disposed on its merits. - 2. That the applicant's Advocate appeared at Court in time when the case was due to be heard but his entry was delayed by the security detail of the Judges. - 3. That the applicant is still interested in pursuing his right to property as Administrator of the estate of the late Especto Ssenyigo. - 4. That when the applicant's Advocate appeared to the Judge's chambers minutes after 9:00 am when the trial/Resident Judge was starting to read the ruling. - 5. The applicant was sealed in another chambers upstairs. - 6. It's in the interest of Justice that the order dismissing the main suit is set aside and the reinstated and heard on its merit.

In such matters there are three major issues to consider that is;

When age

- 1. Whether the applicant had justifiable reason to be prevented to be in Court at the time he was required at both dismissals. - 2. Whether the applicant is still interested in pursuing the dismissed suit which has a high chance of success. - 3. Whether it's just, fair and in the interest of Justice that this application be granted to ends of Justice to meet.

The issues above can only be determined by evidence as per the applicant which having perused as a matter of timing.

I find that the application for setting aside the dismissal on both times:

- 1. Is successfully set aside. - 2. Suit No.034 of 2021 be reinstated and be heard interparties. - 3. Costs be considered on the main suit. - 4. There seems to be a high chance of success to the applicant.

Pluads.

JAQUELINE MWONDHA JUDGE

25<sup>th</sup> Septermber, 2023.

Almondia

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.

Section 98 Civil Procedure Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 9 Rule 23 Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 52 Rules 1 & 3 Civil Procedure Rules

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.