Musiime v Uganda Security Printing Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1981 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 62 (25 February 2025)

Full Case Text

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA ICOMMERCIAL DIVISIONI MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 198I OF 2024 ARISING OUT OF CIVIL SUIT NO. OO2I OF 2023 MUSIIME PADDY MURAMURA: :: : :: : : : : :: : : :: : : :: : : : :: : : : : : : : :: : : : :APPLICANT

#### VERSUS

## UGANDA SECURITY PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED::::RESPONDENT BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE ANNA B. MUGENYI

#### RULING

#### INTRODUCTION

This application was brought by notice of motion under Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 33 of the Judicature Act for orders that Civil Suit No. 0021 of 2023 be reinstated and heard on its merits and costs of this application be provided for.

This application is supported by the affidavit of Musiime Paddy Muramura and opposed by the affidavit in reply of George Mugerwa.

#### BACKGROUND

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 0021 of 2023 against the respondent. The suit was subsequently abated on 22nd of August, 2023. The applicant then filed this application to this court seeking the reinstatement of the suit

The applicant contends that summons for directions were taken out signed by the deputy registrar and served on the respondent in the main suit and hence the suit was abated in error since the applicant had complied with the requirement of taking out summons for directions. The applicant prayed for this court to invoke its powers under section 98 of the CPA to reinstate the suit.

The applicant further contended that if this application is not granted, he will be prejudiced as he will be required to file a fresh suit which will not only cost him money but will also take him aback for several months in filing pleadings yet he did

llPaBe

not default but rather complied with the requirement of taking out summons for directions.

The respondent contended that the applicant did not take any steps to fix the suit before the trial judge and as such it abated. The respondent averred that the only remedy for the applicant is to file a fresh suit. The respondent further contended that there has been inordinate delay on the part ofthe applicant who filed this application one year and two months later from the date of the abatement and allowing such will only prejudice the respondent who had written the suit off his books ofaccount.

The respondent contended that in the alternative if this application is granted, the respondent's underlying application for the issuance of third party notice dismissed after the abatement of the civil suit should be reinstated.

#### REPRESENTATION

The applicant was represented by Yiga Advocates, whereas the respondent was represented by IWs K & K Advocates.

### DECISION

I have read the pleadings of the parties and submissions of counsel and the main issue for determination by this Court is whether Civil Suit No. 0021 of 2023 was abated in error and should, therefore, be reinstated.

Order XIA Rule l(2) of the CPR provides for the requirement of extracting summons for directions thus;

"Where a suit has been instituted by way of a plaint, the plaintiff shall take out summons for direction within 28 days from the date of the last reply or reioinder referred to in rule l8(5) ofOrder Vlll ofthese Rule".

Under Order XIA Rule 1(6) of the CPR, a suit abates where the plaintiff fails to take out summons as prescribed in Order XIA Rule 1(2).

Order XIA Rule 1(7) of the CPR provides for the remedy to a party whose suit has abated. It states that:

"Where a suit has abated under sub rule (7), the plaintiff may, subject to the law of limitation, file afresh suit".

In the instant case, this court abated Civil Suit No. 0021 of2023 on22'd ofAugust 2023.

N.u

2lPage

It is important to analyse the circumstances leading to the abatement of the suit to establish whether the suit was abated in error after the applicant had complied with the requirement of taking out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of the last reply.

The applicant who was the plaintiff in the abated suit filed his reply to the written statement of defence on 15th of February, 2023. This, therefore, meant that he was supposed to take out summons for directions within 28 days from 15th of February, 2023.

On 24th of February 2023, the applicant wrote to the court through the registrar requesting the issuance of summons for directions. He wrote again to the registrar on 4th of April, 2023, requesting the issuance of summons for directions. The summons for directions were subsequently issued by the deputy registrar on 18th of April, 2023 and served onto the defendant who is the respondent in this case.

In the summons for directions issued by the deputy registrar, 6th of May 2023 was the date given to the parties for the last mention of the case before the registrar and was the date the file was to be forwarded to the trial Judge.

On 12th of May 2023, counsel for the applicant wrote to the court requesting a new mention date since the date given during the summons for directions fell on a Saturday. On 6th of June 2023, the parties are seen to have entered a consent rescheduling the matter to 26th of June 2023. The applicant is seen to have filed a joint scheduling memorandum on 2nd of May 2023 and their trial bundle on 16th of May 2023.

This, therefore, shows that the applicant took out summons for directions within the stipulated time as per Order XIA Rule 1(2) CPR. It is trite law that once the applicant complies with Order XIA Rule 1(2), the suit cannot abate. Abating such a suit where the applicant has complied with the order is an error and unjust.

Under Order XIA rule 1(6), a suit only abates where the plaintiff fails to take out summons for directions as prescribed by Order XIA rule 1(2) of the CPR. In this case, the applicant complied with the said order and took out summons for directions. The parties were given timelines within which to file their respective documents which are seen to have been filed on ECCMIS.

The intention of the framers of Order XIA Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2019 was to mitigate the delays and inefficiencies brought on by the actions of officers of the court and the parties in civil proceedings. For these rules to achieve

3 | Page

the desired objective, a holistic and judicious approach to their application should be adopted by the courts. (Kagimu Moses Gava & others v Sekatawa Muhammed & others Miscellaneous Appeal No 25 of 2020).

In a situation such as this where the applicant duly complied with Order XIA Rule 1, it is only just and fair that the abatement entered in error should be set aside and the suit reinstated. Though the respondent contends that there has being inordinate delay in filing this application, this Court takes notice ofthe fact that the applicant wrote letters to this court in the months of November, December 2023 and, April 2024 in a bid to try and bring this issue to its attention hence there has been no inordinate delay on their part.

I, therefore, find that the Civil Suit No. 0021 of 2023 was abated in error. Civil Suit No. 0021 of 2023 is therefore reinstated. No order as to costs.

W^il,"llcu

HON. LADY JUSTICE ANNA B. MUGENYI DATED l\*1..t