Share
Mrs. Christine Anywar & Rose Alilo v Mr. Christopher Alioma, Mr. Leni Gilbert Boniface, Andama Martin & The Red Pepper Publications Ltd (Civil Suit 27 of 2015) [2023] UGHC 208 (16 October 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] UGHC 208
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Mwaka, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit 27 of 2015
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Mwaka, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit 27 of 2015
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that substituted service of the hearing notice was properly effected by affixing it 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 prolonged inactivity in the case, the absence of any mediation report, and the lack of prosecution by either party, the court exercised its discretion under Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for non-appearance. The court further ordered that each party bear its own costs, considering the circumstances and the backlog of cases.
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
PlaintiffRose Alilo
PlaintiffMr. Christopher Alioma
DefendantMr. Leni Gilbert Boniface
DefendantAndama Martin
DefendantThe Red Pepper Publications Ltd
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Non Appearance
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether substituted service of the hearing notice was properly effected on the parties.
- 02
Whether the suit should be dismissed for non-appearance of both parties and their counsel.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- No arguments were presented by the plaintiffs or their counsel as they were absent from court.
- Respondent
- No arguments were presented by the defendants or their counsel as they were absent from court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71-1
A suit may be dismissed for non-appearance of parties under Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 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.
- 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 it 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 prolonged inactivity in the case, the absence of any mediation report, and the lack of prosecution by either party, the court exercised its discretion under Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for non-appearance. The court further ordered that each party bear its own costs, considering the circumstances and the backlog of cases.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted the persistent backlog of cases and the need for parties to actively prosecute their matters to avoid dismissal.
- The court emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders regarding service and appearance.
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
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 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.
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.