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)
UGANDA ELECTRICITY BOARD
UGANDA ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD….RESPONDENT
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
Notaries Public and
Commissioners for Oaths
Trademark & Patent agents
10TH FLOOR, TALLTOWER
P. O. BOX 7026,
Y. KAGUMIRE (BARRISTER.AT.LAW)
J. F. KANYEMIBWA LL.B (HONS) MAKERERE
DENNIS I. WAMALA LL.B (HONS) MAKERERE
Pope F. Ahimbisibwe L.L.B (HONS) Makerere
Naboth Muhairwe L.L.B (HONS) Makerere
Esther Kasiima, L.L.B (HONS) Makerere
Our Ref: JFK/EA/56546
Please quote our reference
Ruth Masika, L.L.B (HONS) Dar es Salaam
High Court of Uganda,
Application for Dismissal of Suit under O.15 r.6 CPR
Nakawa H.C.C.S No. 146 of 2003
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
KATEERA & KAGUMIRE
The Board Secretary,
Uganda Electricity Board,
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
“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.