Court name
High Court of Uganda
Judgment date
7 July 2006

Mildred Kamau v Uganda Electricity Board and Anor (Miscellaneous Application-2006/96) [2006] UGHC 26 (07 July 2006);

Cite this case
[2006] UGHC 26

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT NAKAWA

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 96 OF 2006

(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 146 OF 2003)



MILDRED KAMAU………………………………………………….....
APPLICANT

VERSUS

1.      

UGANDA ELECTRICITY BOARD

2.      
UGANDA ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD….RESPONDENT



RULING

This was an application by notice of motion for an order, inter alia, that:

“The order dismissing HCCS No. 146/03 be set aside and the suit be reinstated and be duly fixed for hearing.”



All the parties filed affidavits in support and reply. I do not need to go into their details.



My main concern is the document dated 07/11/2005. It reads:



Kateera & Kagumire      
        
        
        
Telephone 256 – 41 – 234483/4/5
(Formerly Hunter & Greig)       
        
        
        
Telefax: 256 – 41 – 234486
Advocates Solicitors    
        
        
        
        
        
E–mail: hyperlink
Notaries Public and     
        
        
        
        
        
hyperlink

Commissioners for Oaths

Trademark & Patent agents



        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
10TH FLOOR, TALLTOWER

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
CRESTED TOWERS

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
HANNINGTON ROAD,

        
        
        
7th November, 2005      
        
P. O. BOX 7026,

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
KAMPALA, UGANDA



Y. KAGUMIRE (BARRISTER.AT.LAW)

J. F. KANYEMIBWA LL.B (HONS) MAKERERE

DENNIS I. WAMALA LL.B (HONS) MAKERERE





ASSOCIATES



Pope F. Ahimbisibwe L.L.B (HONS) Makerere       
Your Ref:

Naboth Muhairwe L.L.B (HONS) Makerere

Esther Kasiima, L.L.B (HONS) Makerere   
        
Our Ref: JFK/EA/56546   
Please quote our reference



CONSULTANT

Ruth Masika, L.L.B (HONS) Dar es Salaam





The Registrar,

High Court of Uganda,

NAKAWA.





Your Worship,




Re:     
Application for Dismissal of Suit under O.15 r.6 CPR

Nakawa H.C.C.S No. 146 of 2003

Mildred Kamau

Vs.

Uganda Electricity Board and Another

--------------------------------------------



The above matter refers.



We act for Uganda Electricity Board the Defendant in the above suit.


The said suit was filed in May 2003 against the Defendants for damages resulting from alleged negligence of the defendants causing
injury to the Plaintiff. The plaintiff has, however, not taken any more steps with a view to proceeding with it since then.

In the circumstances, we hereby apply under O.15 r.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules that the above suit be dismissed for want of Prosecution with costs to
the Defendant.



Yours faithfully,







KATEERA & KAGUMIRE





c.c.    
The Board Secretary,

        
Uganda Electricity Board,

        
KAMPALA.







On this document is an endorsement reading:

“Dismissed with costs”
It was signed by the Nakawa High Court Registrar and dated 21/11/2005.
















Long ago, in PIRBHAI LALJI & SONS LTD VS. HADSANALI DEVJI: HCCS NO. 269/62, Russell, J. stated: -


“I am not satisfied a defendant is entitled to move the court under O48.r1 to dismiss a suit for want of prosecution pursuant
to O15.r6.

“It appears to me that the present application was misconceived as under O15.r6 the court may on its own initiative order a
suit to be dismissed for want of prosecution provided a defendant is not entitled to make such application under some other provision
in the Civil Procedure Code or Rules”.




I have not come across any decision overruling the above decision. I am persuaded by Russell, J’s ruling. In which vein I find
that the advocates for the Respondents moved the Registrar under a wrong rule and the Registrar ended up making a wrong decision.
I declare it a nullity. I also repeat my ruling in ROSE KENO & 5 OTHERS VS. NOORDIN WALJI: HCCS NO. 869/85. I allow the application. I deny the Applicant the costs of this application because she and especially her Counsel were not diligent
enough to cause the suit to be heard. The suit is hereby reinstated.





Sgd:    
Gideon Tinyinondi

        
JUDGE

        
07/07/2006.