The Commercial Division of the High Court in Kampala has dismissed a lawsuit by Westwinds Trading C.O Matco Ltd against Exim Bank (Uganda) Ltd, ruling that the company’s fresh case was filed in violation of Uganda’s civil procedure rules.
The decision, delivered on August 12, 2025, by Justice Patience T.E. Rubagumya, arose from Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2025, in which Exim Bank asked the court to strike out Civil Suit No. 1250 of 2024 for lacking a reasonable cause of action.
The dispute traces back to 2022, when Westwinds alleged that Exim Bank wrongfully transferred USD 95,841 from a MarkAfrica (U) Ltd account to Wamimbi & Co. Advocates. Westwinds claimed the transfer occurred a day before a court decree absolute was issued, making it negligent, illegal, and fraudulent. The funds were part of USD 238,000 Westwinds had sent for the purchase of 476 metric tons of soya beans under a supply agreement with MarkAfrica.
This was not the first time the matter reached court. Westwinds had previously filed Civil Suit No. 629 of 2022 against Exim Bank, but it was dismissed on December 7, 2023, by Justice Anna B. Mugenyi for non-appearance under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Instead of applying for reinstatement of the case, Westwinds filed a fresh suit in 2024 containing the same facts and allegations.
Exim Bank, through its legal officer Immaculate Murungi and represented by counsel Hilda Joan Nakandi of V. Agaba Advocates, argued that this move was illegal under Order 9 rule 23(1), which expressly bars a plaintiff from bringing a new suit on the same cause of action after dismissal for non-appearance. The rule allows only for an application to set aside the dismissal if sufficient cause is shown.
Westwinds, represented by M/s Fontes Advocates, defended its decision to start afresh, saying it was more expedient than reinstating the old case. It also insisted it had a customer–banker relationship with Exim Bank since its representative was a signatory to the MarkAfrica account.
Justice Rubagumya rejected Westwinds’ position, noting that the law was clear and mandatory. Citing precedents such as Hon. Issa Kikungwe & Another v Attorney General and Patrick Mayanja v UNRA, the judge stressed that once a suit is dismissed under Order 9 rule 22, the plaintiff is “precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action.”
The judge also referred to the landmark principle in Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga, which holds that courts cannot sanction what is forbidden by law, and once an illegality is brought to light, it overrides all other considerations.
In conclusion, Justice Rubagumya found Civil Suit No. 1250 of 2024 “incompetent by reason of having been filed contrary to Order 9 rule 23” and ordered it dismissed with costs to Exim Bank.
The ruling underscores the strict enforcement of procedural rules in Uganda’s courts and serves as a cautionary tale for litigants who attempt to bypass reinstatement requirements after dismissal for non-appearance.
