Download

Uganda Judgment

Commercial Court of Uganda

Western Cables Uganda Limited v Juliet Namuli Asiya and Others (Civil Suit No: 522 of 2019) [2025] UGCommC 205 (19 June 2025)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the parties failed to appear for the hearing despite being duly notified, and had not taken any further steps necessary to advance the case since its reinstatement. This constituted a failure to prosecute the suit. In light of the judiciary's backlog and the need for expeditious disposal of cases, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. The court emphasized that adherence to procedural timelines is essential and that parties must diligently prosecute their matters to avoid unnecessary consumption of judicial resources.

Court disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

02

Material facts

Parties

Western Cables Uganda Limited

Plaintiff

Juliet Namuli Asiya

Defendant

Kimbowa Robert

Defendant

Westerner Cables Company (U) Ltd

Defendant

Kimbowa Kenneth Suubi Sembatya

Defendant

Tendo Eliana

Defendant

Kirabo Cynthia

Defendant

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Defendant

DFCU Bank Ltd

Defendant

PKF Uganda

Defendant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Non Appearance

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
No arguments were presented as neither the plaintiff nor the defendants appeared at the hearing despite proper notice.
Respondent
No arguments were presented as neither the plaintiff nor the defendants appeared at the hearing despite proper notice.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 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 the parties failed to appear for the hearing despite being duly notified, and had not taken any further steps necessary to advance the case since its reinstatement. This constituted a failure to prosecute the suit. In light of the judiciary's backlog and the need for expeditious disposal of cases, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. The court emphasized that adherence to procedural timelines is essential and that parties must diligently prosecute their matters to avoid unnecessary consumption of judicial resources.

Obiter and limits

  • The judiciary is currently burdened by a backlog of cases, necessitating stricter adherence to timelines.
  • Parties must respond punctually and diligently to prosecute their matters, or risk dismissal for inaction.

Court disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

  • 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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Commercial Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2025] UGCommC 205

5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO: 0522 OF 2019

10 WESTERN CABLES UGANDA LIMITED ======== PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

1. JULIET NAMULI ASIYA 15 2. KIMBOWA ROBERT 3. WESTERNER CABLES COMPANY (U) LTD 4. KIMBOWA KENNETH SUUBI SEMBATYA 5. TENDO ELIANA 6. KIRABO CYNTHIA 20 7. UGANDA REGISTRATION SERVICES BUREAU 8. DFCU BANK LTD 9. PKF UGANDA=======================DEFENDANT

BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE SUSAN ODONGO

25 RULING

The Plaintiff filed this suit for various declaratory and financial orders against the defendants related to unlawful incorporation of a company with intention to defraud the plaintiff.

This suit was dismissed on 11th November 2020 for want of prosecution and reinstated on 4 th November 2022. This matter was cause listed for 19th 30 June 2025 and the cause list widely circulated. Hearing notice was issued via ECCMIS. However, when this matter was called on for hearing, the parties did not appear.

It goes without saying that the judiciary is currently burdened by a backlog of cases, and courts have adopted a stricter stance regarding adherence to timelines

35 established to facilitate the expeditious disposal of cases. When a suit is called on by the court for hearing or for any related matter, it is incumbent upon parties

![](_page_0_Picture_10.jpeg)

5 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, S. I. 17-1 guides the Court on how to proceed. The provision states;

- 10 *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).* - 15 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 20 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 25 pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

I so order.

![](_page_1_Picture_8.jpeg)

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.

Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 17-1

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.