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.