Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Mulondo v Freight Forwarders (u) Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1720 of 2019) [2021] UGHCLD 12 (2 March 2021)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application was struck out because the applicant failed to demonstrate authority to act as the legal representative of the deceased, neither attaching any such authority nor stating it in his affidavit. Additionally, the submissions were filed outside the time directed by the court, with no extension sought. The application was therefore improperly before the court and could not be entertained.

Court disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • The application is struck out for being improperly before the court.
  • No costs are awarded.

02

Material facts

Parties

Patrick Mulondo (suing as the surviving Legal Representative of Emmanuel Wasajja, Deceased)

Applicant Counsel: Sekabanja & Co. Advocates

Freight Forwarders (U) Limited

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant contended that his former lawyers, Sekabanja & Co. Advocates, failed to inform him of the hearing date and did not attend court, resulting in the dismissal of the suit for lack of prosecution. He sought to set aside the dismissal order, claiming he was not notified and that he is the surviving legal representative of the deceased.
Respondent
The respondent did not file any reply to the application.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 9 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules

    Where a suit is dismissed for nonappearance of either party, the plaintiff may, subject to the law of limitation, bring a fresh suit or apply to court to set aside the dismissal.

  2. 02

    Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act

    An applicant must demonstrate authority to act as a legal representative when purporting to represent an estate.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application was struck out because the applicant failed to demonstrate authority to act as the legal representative of the deceased, neither attaching any such authority nor stating it in his affidavit. Additionally, the submissions were filed outside the time directed by the court, with no extension sought. The application was therefore improperly before the court and could not be entertained.

Obiter and limits

  • The suit had been in the court system for over two decades without appropriate steps taken by the plaintiff to prosecute it.
  • No costs were awarded since the respondent did not file any reply.

Court disposition

application struck out

  • The application is struck out for being improperly before the court.
  • No costs are awarded.

Source and reliance status

HC: Land 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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2021] UGHCLD 12

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

LAND DIVISION

MISCELLENEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1720 OF 2019

(ARISING OUT OF CIVIL SUIT NO. 659 OF 1998)

PATRICK MULONDO

(Suing as the surviving Legal Representative of Emmanuel $\,$

<table>

Wasajja (Deceased) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

$\mathsf{S}$

VERSUS

FREIGHT FORWARDERS (U) LIMITED::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Before: Lady Justice Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya

RULING:

Introduction:

$20$

This application is brought against the respondent, Freight Forwarders (U) Ltd, under section 98 CPA 0.9 r 18 CPR, 0.52 r 1 $\& 2.$

It is seeking to move this court to set aside the dismissal order in Civil Suit No. 659 of 1998 on the grounds that the applicant was not informed about the date when this matter came up.

Julian O

$\sim$

The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Patrick Mulondo, purporting to be the surviving legal representative of the late Emmanual Wasajja.

In brief, the contention is that the application's former lawyers $M/s$ $\mathsf{S}$ Sekabanja & Co. Advocates who extracted hearing notices for Civil Suit No. 659 of 2018 did not inform the applicant of the date of hearing; and not attend court which therefore dismissed the case for lack of prosecution.

Consideration of the issue: 10

The underlying principle is that where a suit is dismissed for nonappearance of either party to the suit, the plaintiff may, subject to the law of limitation bring a fresh suit or apply to court to set aside the dismissal.

- Court noted however in the instant case that the dismissal order was 15 made on 28<sup>th</sup> June, 2019 for a suit that had been filed in 1998, had been in the court system for more than two decades; and over which no appropriate steps had been taken by the paintiff to have t prosecuted. - Also noted was the fact that this application was filed by a person 20 who claims to be a legal representative of the estate of the late Emmanuel Wasajja.

Neither did he attach any such authority to this application nor did it appear anywhere in his affidavit that he filed the application in his capacity as the legal representative.

Besides also was the fact the purported applicant's submissions were filed on 11<sup>th</sup> September, 2020 outside the time and date as directed $\overline{5}$ by this court on 7<sup>th</sup> September, 2020. There is nothing to show that the applicant sought extension of time to file the said submissions.

This application therefore fails on the ground that it is improperly before this court and is hereby struck out. Since the respondent did not file any reply, no costs are awarded.

Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya

Judge

$\epsilon$ $\rightarrow$ $\gamma$

2<sup>nd</sup> March, 2021. 15

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 of the Civil Procedure Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 9 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 52 Rule 1 & 2 of the 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.