Ssuubiryo Financial Service Ltd v Nsubuga Irene (Miscellaneous Application No. 1091 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 71 (19 June 2025)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (CIVIL DIVISION) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1091 OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF CIVIL SUIT NO.156 OF 2024)

SSUUBIRYO FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD:::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT

VERSUS

NSUBUGA IRENE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE BONNY ISAAC TEKO RULING

This Application was brought under section 33 of the Judicature Act Cap 16, section 98 and 82 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282, O.11A r 2&6 and O.52 r 1,2 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules S. I 71-1 for Orders that;

- *1. Civil Suit No. 156 of 2024 be dismissed on ground that the same has abated.* - *2. Costs of the Application be provided for.*

The grounds of the Application as deposed in the Affidavit of Napewo Edinah a legal officer to the department of the Applicant and are briefly that the Applicant was served with a Plaint and Summons to file a defense on the 27th day of May, 2024 and the Applicant filed its Written Statement of Defense and Counter Claim on the 11th day of June, 2024. On the 17th day of June, 2024 the Respondent and Plaintiff in the Civil Suit No. 156 of 2024 filed a reply to the Written Statement of Defense but since then the Respondent has failed to take out Summons for Directions.


Introduction and Background

On the 23rd day of April, 2024, the Respondent instituted a suit against the Applicant vide Civil Suit No.156 of 2024 which was served upon the Applicant. The Respondent on the 8th day of May, 2024 filed an amended Plaint and served the same together with the summons upon the Applicant.

On the 11th day of June, 2024, the Applicant filed a written statement of defense and served the Respondent. The Respondent filed a reply to the written statement of defense and counter claim on the 17th day of June, 2024 but the Applicant has since failed to take out Summons for Directions.

Representation.

The Applicant was represented by M/s Rwabwogo & Co. Advocates. The Respondents/Plaintiffs pleadings in *Civil Suit No. 156 of 2024* were drawn by Baraka Legal Associated Advocates however the respondent never pursued the Civil Suit neither did she make any appearance or replies on the application.

Issue

*Whether Civil Suit No. 156 of 2024 abated and should be dismissed.*

Submissions by the Applicant

On the issue whether Civil Suit No. 156 of 2024 abated and should be dismissed, the Applicant submitted that O.11A R 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that where a suit has been instituted by way of a Plaint, the Plaintiff shall take out Summons for Directions within 28 days from the date of the last reply or rejoinder referred to in rule 18(5) of order VIII of these Rules.

19TH JUNE 2025

The applicant averred that order 11A r 1(6) requires that if the plaintiff does not take out Summons for Directions in accordance with sub rules 2 and 6 the suit shall abate.

The Applicant cited Kagimu Moses Gava & others V Sekatawa Muhammed & others Misc Appn No. 25 of 2020 where court held that *the intention of framers of O.11A r 1 of the CPR was to mitigate the delays and inconveniences brought by the actions of the officers of court and the parties in civil proceedings in order that these rules achieve the desired objective, a holistic and judicious approach should be adopted by courts.*

The applicant submitted that O.17r5 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that *if the plaintiff does not within eight weeks from the delivery of any defense or where a counterclaim is pleaded then within ten weeks from the delivery of the counterclaim, set down the suit for hearing then the defendant may either set down the suit for hearing or apply to the court to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and on the hearing of the application the court may order the suit to be dismissed accordingly, or may make such other order and on such terms as to the court may seem just.*

The applicant relied on the case of Seruwu Jude V Swangz Avenue Ltd HCCA No. 0039 of 2021 court stated that *abatement of the suit takes place automatically when no application is made or step taken by either party for a period of 6 months after the mandatory scheduling conference with a view to proceeding with the suit.*

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Plaintiff/Respondent's inaction for a period exceeding three months since the closure of pleadings constitutes inordinate delay, indicative of a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. This is prejudicial to the Defendant/Applicant and undermined the expeditious disposal of suits as envisaged under Article 28(1) of the Constitution of Uganda, 1995 which provides for t*he right*


*to a fair hearing. It guarantees individuals the right to a fair, speedy, and public trial*

Counsel for the Applicant concluded by submitting that the continued pendency of the suit without active prosecution is not only an abuse of court process but also offends the dictates of justice, which require that litigation must be conducted with due diligence and reasonable promptitude.

Analysis

I have read the submissions for the Applicant and considered the cases cited and now proceed to analyze the case below.

O.11A r 1(2) *provides that where a suit has been instituted by way of a plaint, the plaintiff shall take out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of the last reply.*

O.11A r1(6) *provides that if the plaintiff does not take out summons for directions the suit shall abate.*

I agree with the ruling cited by the Applicant in the case of Seruwu Jude V Swangz Avenue Ltd HCCA No. 0039 of 2021 where court stated that *abatement of the suit takes place automatically when no application is made or step taken by either party for a period of 6 months after the mandatory scheduling conference with a view to proceeding with the suit.*

As a rule, if the plaintiff does not take out Summons for Directions the suit shall abate and can be dismissed.

In the current application, the Applicant raised grounds that the Respondent has failed to take out Summons for Directions since the last reply.

According to O.11A r 1(2,6) the plaintiff shall take out summons for direction within 28 days from the last reply or else the suit shall abate.


The period that has elapsed since the last reply in the suit is way beyond the 28 days required to take out Summons for Directions making a case for the suit to abate.

Decision

I find that *the suit abated* after expiration of the 28 days within which the Plaintiff/Respondent had to take out Summons for Directions.

I accordingly HEREBY DISMISS Civil Suit No. 156 of 2024 with costs to the Applicant.

I so order.

BONNY ISAAC TEKO

JUDGE

19TH JUNE 2025