Exim Bank Uganda Ltd v Benon Tumusange and Timothy Justine Robert Mayhew (Civil Suit No: 921 of 2016) [2025] UGCommC 204 (19 June 2025)

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) **CIVIL SUIT NO: 0921 OF 2016**

EXIM BANK UGANDA LTD ============ PLAINTIFF $10$

#### **VERSUS**

### **1. BENON TUMUSANGE**

**2. TIMOTHY JUSTINE ROBERT MAYHEW === DEFENDANTS** 15

## **BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE SUSAN ODONGO**

### **RULING**

This matter was cause listed on two dates 29<sup>th</sup> May 2025 and 19<sup>th</sup> June 2025, $20$ and the cause lists widely circulated. Hearing notice 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

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

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

$25$

$\mathsf{S}$

5 *may, notwithstanding that default, proceed to decide the suit immediately. (emphasis mine).*

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

10 the Court's discretion that lies with court.

Notably, since this suit was filed in 2016, it, undoubtedly, forms part of case 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 15 Order 17 rule 4 of The Civil Procedure Rules.

Thus, there being no appearance by the parties, I hereby dismiss this suit pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

I so order.


25