Uganda Judgment

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Namiro v Ms Bbaale and Partners Advocates and Legal Consultants (Misc Cause 382 of 2023) [2025] UGHCLD 64 (29 May 2025)

Civil Procedure Land and Property Striking Out Party Costs Award Non Appearance Service of Process

Citation: [2025] UGHCLD 64
Status: Judgment
Jurisdiction: Uganda
Court: HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Panel: Kaahwa, J
Case number: Misc Cause 382 of 2023
Language: English

More details

Court: HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Panel: Kaahwa, J
Case number: Misc Cause 382 of 2023
Language: English

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

Holding and result

The application was dismissed solely on procedural grounds due to the non-appearance of both parties and their counsel at the hearing. The court relied on Order 19 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empowers the court to dismiss an application where parties fail to appear. The court found no justification for the absence, as the respondent's counsel did not specify the case that allegedly caused the scheduling conflict, and the applicant was also absent without explanation. Consequently, the court declined to consider the substantive merits of the application and ordered that each party bear their own costs.

Court disposition

application dismissed for non-appearance of parties

Orders

The application is dismissed for non-appearance of the parties.
Each party shall bear their own costs.

Material facts

Parties

Namiro Suzan

Applicant

M/S Bbaale & Partners, Advocates & Legal Consultants

Respondent Counsel: M/s Eric-Kiingi & Co. Advocates

Procedural history

Posture

Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Striking Out Applicant and Costs

Questions and positions

Legal issues

01
Whether the applicant should be struck out as a party in Civil Suit No.486 of 2025 for lack of instructions to the respondent to file the suit in her name.
02
Whether the respondent should bear the costs awarded against the applicant in Civil Suit No.486 of 2020 and Miscellaneous Application No.328 of 2019.
03
Whether the application should be dismissed for non-appearance of the parties.

Party arguments

Applicant: The applicant sought to be struck out as a party in Civil Suit No.486 of 2025, asserting she never instructed the respondent to commence or file the suit in her name, and requested that costs awarded against her in related matters be met by the respondent.
Respondent: The respondent, through counsel, received the hearing notice but indicated inability to appear due to engagement in the Court of Appeal, without specifying the case. No substantive response to the merits of the application was provided.

Court’s reasoning

Legal principles

01
Order 19 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Rules

An application may be dismissed for non-appearance of parties under Order 19 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
02
Section 98, Civil Procedure Act

The court has inherent powers to make orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.
03
Section 27, Civil Procedure Act; Section 33, Judicature Act

The court may order costs as it deems fit under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 33 of the Judicature Act.

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application was dismissed solely on procedural grounds due to the non-appearance of both parties and their counsel at the hearing. The court relied on Order 19 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empowers the court to dismiss an application where parties fail to appear. The court found no justification for the absence, as the respondent's counsel did not specify the case that allegedly caused the scheduling conflict, and the applicant was also absent without explanation. Consequently, the court declined to consider the substantive merits of the application and ordered that each party bear their own costs.

Obiter and limits

Counsel for the respondent received the hearing notice in protest, citing engagement in the Court of Appeal, but failed to specify the case being attended to.
The affidavit of service confirmed that hearing notices were duly served on both parties' counsel.

Court disposition

application dismissed for non-appearance of parties

The application is dismissed for non-appearance of the parties.
Each party shall bear their own costs.

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

[2025] UGHCLD 64

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION) MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.382 OF 2023

NAMIRO SUZAN------------------------------------

VERSUS

M/S BBAALE & PARTNERS, ADVOCATES & LEGAL CONSULTANTS ------------------ RESPONDENT

BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE CHRISTINE KAAHWA

RULING

This application was brought under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, section 33 of the Judicature Act, section 74(1) of the Advocates Act Cap.267, Rule 2(1) of the Advocates Act Cap.267 and Order 52 Rule 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for orders that;

- 1. The Applicant be struck out as a party in Civil Suit No.486 of 2025 and all applications arising therefrom as the Applicant has never given the Respondent any instructions to commence and/file the Civil Suit in her names. - 2. The costs awarded in Civil Suit No.486 of 2020 and Miscellaneous Application No.328 of 2019 against the Applicant be met by the Respondent. - 3. Costs of the application be provided for.

When this matter came up for hearing the parties and their Counsel were absent.

The Affidavit of Service deposed by Namuddu Ezereth, a Court Process Server shows that she served M/s John F. Ssengooba & Co. Advocates on the 26<sup>th</sup> May 2025. The Hearing Notice was signed by Namugalu Vivian from M/s John F. Ssengooba & Co. Advocates.

On the other hand Counsel for the Respondents M/s Eric-Kiingi & Co. Advocates received the Hearing Notice in protest stating that they would not be able to appear as they were engaged in the Court of Appeal.

I note that the case that was being attended to in the Court of Appeal is not mentioned. I dismiss this application under Order 19 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules for none appearance of the parties. Each party shall bear their own costs.

Dated at Kampala this 29<sup>th</sup> day of May 2025.

$k$ Christine Kaahwa JUDGE

Authorities