Share
TATA (U) Ltd v Neem Cosmetics Ltd (Civil Suit No: 0766 of 2019) [2025] UGCommC 217 (19 June 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] UGCommC 217
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Susan Odongo, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No: 0766 of 2019
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Susan Odongo, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No: 0766 of 2019
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that both parties failed to appear for the hearing and did not take any further steps necessary to advance the case. This inaction constituted a failure to prosecute the suit, justifying the exercise of the court's discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit. The court emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural timelines to address case backlog and ensure expeditious disposal of cases. The absence of the parties and their failure to comply with procedural requirements warranted immediate dismissal of the suit.
Court disposition
suit dismissed for non-appearance of parties
Orders
- The suit is dismissed pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
02
Material facts
Parties
TATA (U) LTD
PlaintiffNEEM COSMETICS LTD
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Non Appearance and Dismissal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the suit should be dismissed for non-appearance of both parties under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 17-1
Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce evidence, cause attendance of witnesses, or perform any act necessary to the further progress of the suit, the court may proceed to decide the suit immediately.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that both parties failed to appear for the hearing and did not take any further steps necessary to advance the case. This inaction constituted a failure to prosecute the suit, justifying the exercise of the court's discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit. The court emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural timelines to address case backlog and ensure expeditious disposal of cases. The absence of the parties and their failure to comply with procedural requirements warranted immediate dismissal of the suit.
Obiter and limits
- The judiciary is currently burdened with case backlog, necessitating stricter adherence to timelines for expeditious disposal of cases.
- Parties must respond punctually and diligently to prosecute their matters, or risk dismissal for wasting court time.
Court disposition
suit dismissed for non-appearance of parties
- The suit is dismissed pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Source and reliance status
Commercial 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.
Commercial Court of Uganda
Judgment
5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO: 0766 OF 2019
10 TATA (U) LTD ========================= PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NEEM COSMETICS LTD ================DEFENDANT
BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE SUSAN ODONGO
RULING
This matter was cause listed and the cause list widely circulated. Hearing notice 20 was issued via ECCMIS. However, when this matter was called on for hearing, the parties did not appear.
It is needful to state that the judiciary is currently burdened with case backlog, and courts have adopted a stricter stance regarding adherence to timelines established to facilitate the expeditious disposal of cases. When a suit is called
25 on by the court for hearing or for any related matter, it is incumbent upon parties to respond punctually and diligently to prosecute their matter, failure to do so results in the unnecessary consumption of the court's valuable time.
Therefore, where parties default in taking actions necessary to facilitate the expeditious progression of the case, Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules,
30 S. I. 17-1 guides the Court on how to proceed. The provision states;
- 5 *Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his or her evidence, or to cause the attendance of his or her witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the court may, notwithstanding that default, proceed to decide the suit immediately. (emphasis mine).* - 10 The performance of any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, may comprise, filing necessary documents, complying with procedural orders, attending hearings. The determination of the suit, forthwith, is a matter within the Court's discretion that lies with court.
Notably, since this suit was filed in 2019, it, undoubtedly, forms part of case 15 backlog. In this case, the parties' failure to appear when the suit was called on for hearing constitutes a failure to take any further steps necessary to advance the case. An act proper for the exercise by this court of the discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of The Civil Procedure Rules.
Thus, there being no appearance by the parties, I hereby dismiss this suit 20 pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
I so order.

19/6/2025
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.