High Court Reaffirms That While Reinstatement of Dismissed Suits Generally Requires Demonstration of Sufficient Cause, the Imperatives of Justice May Override Strict Procedural Rules in Land Disputes.

Brief for the case of Muzafaru v Dezideliyo (Miscellaneous Application 1475 of 2023) [2025] UGHCFD 22 (29 May 2025)

Before: Hon. Lady Justice Dr. Christine A. Echookit

Representation

The Applicant was represented by M/s Mayanja & Arinatwe Advocates and Solicitors, while the Respondent was represented by M/s Katende, Ssempebwa & Co. Advocates, Solicitors, and Legal Consultants.

Introduction

The High Court reaffirmed that while reinstatement of dismissed suits generally requires demonstration of sufficient cause, the imperatives of justice may override strict procedural compliance. Emphasising that “procedural rules are handmaidens of justice, not its master,” the Court allowed reinstatement despite the applicant’s failure to meet the usual threshold.

Facts

The Applicant, Muzafaru Matovu, went to court asking for his dismissed land case (Civil Suit No. 786 of 2017) to be brought back to be reinstated. He further asked the court to set aside the dismissal and allow the case to proceed.

Back in 2017, Mr. Matovu sued for trespass on his land in Mulago, Kampala. In 2018, his lawyer got permission to change parts of the claim (amend the plaint), and the case was later referred for mediation. The two sides even agreed to settle the matter and were working on a draft consent judgment.

Unfortunately, things didn’t go as planned. Mr. Matovu, who was elderly and unwell, couldn’t attend court.

Meanwhile, his lawyer failed to show up when the matter came up for hearing. As a result, the court dismissed the case in 2021 due to lack of action (want of prosecution).

The Applicant expressed continued interest in pursuing the matter and argued that it is in the interest of justice that the dismissal order be set aside and the suit reinstated for hearing on its merits.

The Respondent opposed the application through an affidavit in reply, contending that it was prolix, frivolous, vexatious, and procedurally defective.

In rejoinder, the Applicant maintained the substance of his initial affidavit and reiterated his position in support of the application.

Key Issues

1. Whether sufficient cause was shown for reinstatement.

2. Whether failure to reinstate would occasion injustice.

Court Findings

While acknowledging that the Applicant had not met the procedural threshold of "sufficient cause", as required under Order 9 rule 23 and interpreted in Gideon Mosa Onchwati v Kenya Oil Co. Ltd & Anor [2017] eKLR, adopting the standard from Parimal v Veena Alias Bharti (2011) 3 SCC 545, the Court emphasized that rules of procedure are “handmaidens of justice, not its master.”

The Court examined the Applicant’s medical condition during the COVID-19 pandemic, supported by annexed medical records. The lapse of nearly two years between the dismissal and the application for reinstatement, which undermined the Applicant’s claim of diligence. The Applicant’s assertion that his former counsel’s negligence led to the dismissal.

While the Court noted that negligence of counsel can amount to sufficient cause (Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda SCCA No. 8 of 1998; Capt. Phillip Ongom v Catherine Owala [2003] KALR 53), it found the evidence adduced insufficient to fully exonerate the Applicant’s delay.

Despite the Applicant’s failure to show sufficient cause, the Court found that failure to reinstate the suit would lead to grave injustice. The dispute involved competing claims of legal title versus de facto possession, with the Applicant holding the certificate of title and the Respondent in actual occupation and allegedly deriving commercial benefit from the land.

Citing Article 28 of the Constitution (right to a fair hearing), the Court found that the merits of ownership ought to be adjudicated, reaffirming the precedents in Kityo & 2 Ors v Kamya & 3 Ors [2015] UGHCLD 69 and Kibugumu v Mulungi & Anor [2014] UGHCLD 30

The Court also observed that the parties had previously engaged in mediation (Mediation Cause No. 538 of 2018), resulting in a draft consent judgment, evidence that both sides had once sought amicable resolution.

Rule of Law

The High Court held that:

"A reinstatement of the suit will not occasion any prejudice to the Respondent… On the other hand, the Applicant has the right to be heard in the main suit, which is protected by Article 28 of the Constitution."

In exercising discretion under Order 9 Rule 23 of the CPR and Section 98 of the CPA, the Court emphasized that the nature of the Applicant’s claim—ownership of land—required substantive adjudication in the interest of justice.

Orders

1. Application granted.

2. Costs to the Applicant, in the cause.

The Court exercised its discretion under Order 9 Rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, underscoring that:

“To leave those kinds of dynamics unresolved may have dire consequences... A reinstatement of the suit will not occasion any prejudice to the Respondent... On the other hand, the Applicant has the right to be heard in the main suit, which is protected by Article 28 of the Constitution.”

Key Takeaway

The decision reaffirms that procedural defaults may be overlooked where the underlying claim raises substantial questions of justice, particularly in land disputes involving conflicting claims of title and possession. Courts retain wide discretion to reinstate suits where doing so serves the interests of justice and does not prejudice the opposing party.