Share
Kereni v Kidega and 2 Others (Kereni v Kidega and 2 Others) [1996] UGHC 14 (26 April 1996)
- Citation
- [1996] UGHC 14
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Kereni v Kidega and 2 Others
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Kereni v Kidega and 2 Others
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the reasons advanced by the plaintiff for adjournment—being busy at work and the unexplained absence of witnesses—do not constitute sufficient cause under the Civil Procedure Rules. Granting adjournments on such grounds would undermine the progress of court work. As the plaintiff failed to provide adequate justification, the application for adjournment was dismissed. Consequently, the suit was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with costs awarded to the second and third defendants.
Court disposition
Application for adjournment dismissed; suit dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Orders
- The application for adjournment is dismissed.
- The suit is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Costs are awarded to the second and third defendants.
02
Material facts
Parties
Keren Bwomono
PlaintiffTitus Kidega Lak
Defendant Counsel: Atare, Okwongali & Co.The Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Defendant Counsel: Atare, Okwongali & Co.03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Application for Adjournment and Dismissal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiff has shown sufficient cause for adjournment of the hearing.
- 02
Whether the suit should be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the plaintiff requested adjournment on the grounds that the plaintiff, an employee in the President's Office, was unable to leave work due to being the sole person in his section and his colleague being sick. Additionally, other witnesses from Kitgum were absent despite notification. Counsel prayed for adjournment until the plaintiff's colleague recovered.
- Respondent
- Counsel for the defendants opposed the adjournment, arguing that court proceedings should not be dictated by individual convenience and that no sufficient cause was shown to justify adjournment. He contended that being busy at work is not a valid reason and that the absence of witnesses without explanation does not warrant adjournment.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 15 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Adjournment is a matter of court discretion, exercised only where sufficient cause is shown.
- 02
Order 9 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Dismissal of suit for nonappearance or lack of prosecution is permitted where sufficient cause is not shown for adjournment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the reasons advanced by the plaintiff for adjournment—being busy at work and the unexplained absence of witnesses—do not constitute sufficient cause under the Civil Procedure Rules. Granting adjournments on such grounds would undermine the progress of court work. As the plaintiff failed to provide adequate justification, the application for adjournment was dismissed. Consequently, the suit was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with costs awarded to the second and third defendants.
Obiter and limits
- Court proceedings must not be conducted at the convenience of individuals, but in accordance with established procedure.
- If being busy at work were accepted as sufficient cause, court work would be perpetually stalled.
Court disposition
Application for adjournment dismissed; suit dismissed for lack of prosecution.
- The application for adjournment is dismissed.
- The suit is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Costs are awarded to the second and third defendants.
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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OE UGANDA
AT GUDU DISTRICT REGISTRY IN THE HIGH GOURD OE UGANDA
HIGH COURT CIVIL SUIT HO. MG 5/94
Keren! Bwomono Plaintiff.
versus
1. Titus Kidega Lak (
2. Defendants. I'/s Atare, Okwongali & Co., (Advocates)
3. The Co-operative Bank Ltd. )
BEFORE HOIT. HR . JUSTICE <sup>G</sup> . OKELL0.
<sup>R</sup> <sup>U</sup> I, I IT <sup>G</sup> .
<sup>5</sup> Counsel for tile Plaintiff sought adjournment because he vzas unable to proceed as his witnesses were not present. The reason he advanced for the request was mainly that the Plaintiff who is an employee in the President's Office, was in charge of a Communication Section of that office and was therefore unable to leave the office as he was alone in 'that section. That his colleague was currently sick. Another subsidiary reason was that the Plaintiff's other witnesses from Kitgum were also not present though they were notified. Counsel for the Plaintiff prayed that the case be adjourned to another date possibly when the Plaintiff's sick colleague recovers from his sickness. When this case was called for hearing at the adjourned date of 26/4/96
I<r. Atare opposed the application for adjournment arguing him. In Counsel's view court was not to be conducted at the convenience of an individual. that no sufficient cause was shown by the applicant to justify grant of adjournment. According to Er. Atare, the Plaintiff was asking court to adjourn 'the case until when it vzas convenient to
It is worth pointing out that adjournment is <sup>a</sup> natter of discretion of the court. Under 0.15 r <sup>1</sup> of the CPPl, such discretion is exercised in favour of the applicant where sufficient
cause is shown. the reason advanced for the request for adjournment were two:- One that the Plaintiff was too busy to leave his office. Being too busy in one's place of work was no sufficient cause to justify grant of adjournment. If that were so, no court work would progress as every body would be too busy at his respective place of work. In the instant case<sup>5</sup>
2
The second reason was that the Plaintiff<sup>1</sup> s other witnesses did not appear though they were notified. That is also no sufficient cause to justify grant of adjournment without knowing the cause of the failure. it is clear that the Plaintiff applicant has net advanced sufficient cause to justidy granting him adjournment. The application is therefore dismissed and the suit is dismissed under 0 9 r 19 of the CPR with cost to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. Por the reasons given above,
p *-I* G. M. Okolio
Judge 26/4/1956.
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.