Share
Nassimbwa v Kibiikyo and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 295 of 2023) [2023] UGHCFD 112 (7 November 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] UGHCFD 112
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Family Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Echookit, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 295 of 2023
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Family Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Echookit, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 295 of 2023
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant's absence at the hearing of MA. 816 of 2022 was due to a genuine and plausible mistake, as she and other beneficiaries waited in the wrong courtroom based on prior proceedings. The court accepted the applicant's explanation and noted that the application to set aside the dismissal was brought promptly. The respondent's objection regarding the competence of the application was dismissed, as the co-administrator had withdrawn from the main suit, making it proper for the applicant to proceed alone. The court further held that the existence of another application (MA. 574 of 2023) did not render the present application redundant, as the two sought different reliefs. The court concluded that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for setting aside the dismissal and for reinstatement of MA. 816 of 2022. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.
Court disposition
Application allowed. Dismissal order set aside. MA. 816 of 2022 reinstated. Costs in the cause.
Orders
- The dismissal order of MA. 816 of 2022 is set aside.
- MA. 816 of 2022 is reinstated.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
02
Material facts
Parties
Nassimbwa Rose
Applicant Counsel: Kikomeko SwaibuKibiikyo Sekamate
Respondent Counsel: Nsereko DenisSebuliba Peter
Respondent Counsel: Nsereko DenisKawuma Steven
Respondent Counsel: Nsereko Denis03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the dismissal order of MA. 816 of 2022 should be set aside.
- 02
Whether MA. 816 of 2022 should be re-instated.
- 03
Whether costs should be in the cause.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant, as one of the administrators of the estate, argued that the dismissal of MA. 816 of 2022 occurred due to a genuine mistake in attending the wrong courtroom, and that the application was brought without delay to ensure all issues in the main suit are heard. She further contended that she was entitled to bring the application alone since the co-administrator had withdrawn from the main suit.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued that the application was incompetent as it was brought by only one administrator instead of both, and that reinstatement was unnecessary because another application (MA. 574 of 2023) had already been filed to address the addition of a party to the plaint.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 52 rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 33 of the Judicature Act.
A party seeking to set aside a dismissal order must show plausible cause for non-appearance and act without undue delay.
- 02
Court's interpretation of procedural law and facts of the case.
Where a co-administrator has withdrawn from the main suit, the remaining administrator may proceed without the other's consent.
- 03
General principles of civil procedure.
Reinstatement of a dismissed application requires demonstration of merit in the cause intended for reinstatement.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant's absence at the hearing of MA. 816 of 2022 was due to a genuine and plausible mistake, as she and other beneficiaries waited in the wrong courtroom based on prior proceedings. The court accepted the applicant's explanation and noted that the application to set aside the dismissal was brought promptly. The respondent's objection regarding the competence of the application was dismissed, as the co-administrator had withdrawn from the main suit, making it proper for the applicant to proceed alone. The court further held that the existence of another application (MA. 574 of 2023) did not render the present application redundant, as the two sought different reliefs. The court concluded that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for setting aside the dismissal and for reinstatement of MA. 816 of 2022. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.
Obiter and limits
- A party has a right to order his actions subject to law, and the existence of another application does not preclude the hearing of the present one on its own merits.
- The notice of motion was the proper procedure for bringing the application.
Court disposition
Application allowed. Dismissal order set aside. MA. 816 of 2022 reinstated. Costs in the cause.
- The dismissal order of MA. 816 of 2022 is set aside.
- MA. 816 of 2022 is reinstated.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Source and reliance status
HC: Family 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Family Division (Uganda)
Judgment
| 2 | THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA | |-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA | | 4 | [FAMILY DIVISION] | | | <b>MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 295 OF 2023</b> | | 6 | [ARISING OUT OF MISC. APPN. NO. B16 OF 2022] | | | [ARISING OUT OF CIVIL SUIT NO. 226 OF 2022] | | | :::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT<br><b>NASSIMBWA ROSE</b> | | 8<br>$\overrightarrow{\phantom{a}}$ | (Administrator of the Estate of the late Male Nuwa Salongo) | | | VERSUS | | 10 | | | | 1. KIBIIKYO SEKAMATE | | 12 | SEBULIBA PETER<br><b>::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS</b><br>3. KAWUMA STEVEN | | | (Administrators of the Estate of the late Male Nuwa Salongo) | | 14 | | | 16 | BEFORE: LADY JUSTICE DR. CHRISTINE A. ECHOOKIT | | | RULING | | 18 | This application is brought under O. 52 r 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, S.98 of the | | | Civil Procedure Act S. 33 of the Judicature Act for orders that; | | | a) The dismissal order of MA 816 of 2022 be set aside. | | 20 | b) MA. 816 of 2022 be re-instaled. | | 22 | c) Costs be in the cause. | | | The application is supported by the affidavit of Nassimbwa Rose with brief grounds that; |
- $24$ 1. The Applicant is one of the administrators of the estate of the late Male Nuwa Salongo. MA. 816 of 2022 was filed to seek amendment in the original plaint to enable proper. 26 - determination of the main suit. - MA. 816 of 2022 was fixed for hearing on 13/3/2023 at 12.00pm and the Applicant and 28 other beneficiaries missed the hearing because they had gone to wait before HW Katushabe Prossy where a previous MA. 900/2023 had been heard, only to learn from 30 their Counsel that the application was before Justice Keitirima. - 4. By the time her Counsel appeared, the matter had been called in the absence of both parties and dismissed. - 5. The application is brought without delay with all intentions of having all issues in Civil Suit No. 226 of 2022 heard and determined.
Representation and hearing.
- The Applicant was represented by Counsel Kikomeko Swaibu. The Respondents were 36 represented by Counsel Nsereko Denis. The Applicant and the Respondent were in Court. - Counsel for the Applicant filed written submissions. The Respondent's Counsel made oral 38 submissions as they were served late.
Issues for the determination of this Court. 40
- 1. Whether the dismissal order of MA. 816 of 2022 should be set aside. - Whether MA. No. 816 of 2022 should be re-installed. 47 - Whether costs should be in the cause.
Determination of the issues by this Court 44
- 1. Whether the dismissal order of MA. 816 of 2022 should be set aside - The Applicant stated that she came to Court on the day of the hearing of MA. 816 of 46 2022. She was together with other beneficiaries of the estate. However, they
$\epsilon$
mistakenly waited to hear from HW Katushabe Prossy where a previous MA. 900 of 2023 had been heard, thinking her Worship was to hear MA. 816 of 2022.
$\mathcal{L}$
$\overline{4}$
From her affidavit in support of the application, Nassimbwa Rose states "We tried to call over Counsel whom we were not seeing at Court his phone number was off..... later on Counsel called me ........ he told me that we inquire where Justice Keitirima sits because it is where the matter is to be heard from". She also stated that by the time her Counsel arrived at around 12:10pm he was told the matter was dismissed in the absence of all parties.
In the instant case, the Applicant states she had mistakenly been waiting to go before 58 HW Katushabe Prossy, only to be informed that the matter was before Justice Keitirima. In my view, this is plausible cause and the Applicant desires a chance to be 60 heard. There is a contention by the Respondent's Counsel that the application is incompetent and defective as it was instituted by only Rose Nassimbwa one of the 62 administrators of the estate of the late Male Nuwa Ssalongo instead of 2 administrators including Nababi Jane. The said Nababi Jane filed a notice of withdrawal from the 64 main suit on 21/9/2022 and did not give her Counsel to Rose Nassimbwa to bring the application in MA. 295 of 2023 in her name.
I agree with the Applicant's Counsel that since the said Nababi Jane had withdrawn 68 from the main suit, the Applicant was right to bring this application in her name only and did not need the consent of the said Nababi Jane. I also find no problem with the $70$ lite: $\mathcal{L} \subset \mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{L}}$ law under which the application is brought, and the notice of motion is indeed the proper way.
Whether MA. No. 816 of 2022 should be re-instated.
ŧ
$\cap$
It is a requirement of the law that there should be merit in the cause intended for reinstatement. MA. 816 of 2022 seeks amendment of the plaint to incorporate new facts and to add a party as a defendant. The Respondent submitted that re-instalement would not be necessary as the Applicant has instituted another application No. 574 of 2023 seeking to add a party to the plaint. Hence, that any amendment to be done to the plaint should dispense with the issues that MA. 816 of 2022 was instituted for.
The Applicant clarified that MA. 574 of 2023 fixed for hearing on 7/11/2023 is intended to add a party and is to that extent only. It is different from MA. 816 of 2022 which seeks to amend the plaint to add several reliefs. It looks to me that since the scope of MA. 574 of 2023 is limited to adding a party to the suit, it is imperative that MA. 816 of 2022 be heard on its own merits as a party has a right to order his actions subject to law. In the premises, I find that the Applicant has satisfied Court that MA. 816 of 2022 deserves to be re-instaled.
Whether costs should be in the cause.
In view of the above, I find that costs should be in the cause.
I therefore order that:
- 1. The dismissal order of MA. 816 of 2022 be and is hereby set aside. - 2. MA. 816 of 2022 is hereby re-instated. - 3. Costs be in the cause.
Dated at Kampala this 7<sup>th</sup> day of November 2023
ing A Echanbit
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.