Download

Uganda Judgment

Commercial Court of Uganda

Kironde Ashiraf v Kobil Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No: 381 of 2016) [2025] UGCommC 208 (18 June 2025)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court exercised its discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit due to the parties' failure to appear and take necessary steps to advance the case. The court emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural timelines to address case backlog and ensure expeditious disposal of cases. The absence of both parties when the matter was called for hearing constituted a failure to prosecute, justifying dismissal under the cited rule.

Court disposition

suit dismissed for non-appearance of parties

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

02

Material facts

Parties

Kironde Ashiraf

Plaintiff

Kobil Uganda Ltd

Defendant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Suit / Ruling on Non Appearance and Dismissal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the suit should be dismissed for non-appearance of the parties under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 17-1

    Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce evidence, cause attendance of witnesses, or perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, the court may proceed to decide the suit immediately.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit due to the parties' failure to appear and take necessary steps to advance the case. The court emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural timelines to address case backlog and ensure expeditious disposal of cases. The absence of both parties when the matter was called for hearing constituted a failure to prosecute, justifying dismissal under the cited rule.

Obiter and limits

  • Courts have adopted a stricter stance regarding adherence to timelines to facilitate expeditious disposal of cases.
  • The judiciary is currently burdened with case backlog, necessitating efficient case management.

Court disposition

suit dismissed for non-appearance of parties

  • The suit is dismissed pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Source and reliance status

Commercial 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

Commercial Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2025] UGCommC 208

5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO: 0381 OF 2016

10 KIRONDE ASHIRAF ======================= PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

KOBIL UGANDA LTD =====================DEFENDANT

BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE SUSAN ODONGO

15 RULING

This matter was cause listed for hearing 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 is needful to state that the judiciary is currently burdened with case backlog, 20 and courts have adopted a stricter stance regarding adherence to timelines 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 to respond punctually and diligently to prosecute their matter, failure to do so results in the unnecessary consumption of the court's valuable time.

25 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;

*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*

30 *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).*

The performance of any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, may comprise, filing necessary documents, complying with procedural orders,

![](_page_0_Picture_12.jpeg)

5 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 2016, it, undoubtedly, forms part of case 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

10 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 pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

I so order.

![](_page_1_Picture_6.jpeg)

JUDGE 18/6/2025

20

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.

Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 17-1

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.