KAMPALA, Uganda | The High Court of Uganda has dismissed an application to reinstate a civil suit, cautioning lawyers against relying solely on the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) for case updates. The case, Janet Nakalembe v. Attorney General, highlighted the risks of depending on automated notifications without conducting active follow-up.

Janet Nakalembe had filed a Civil Suit against the Attorney General (AG) and served summons at the Ministry of Justice. When the AG failed to file a defense, Nakalembe’s legal team filed for default judgment through ECCMIS, expecting to be notified of court dates. However, the case was dismissed on June 14, 2022, due to non-appearance at a scheduled mention. Nakalembe’s lawyers only learned of the dismissal three days later via an email notification from ECCMIS.

Justice Ssekaana Musa dismissed the application for reinstatement, emphasizing that ECCMIS is a tool meant to assist but not replace proactive case management. The court noted that legal practitioners are responsible for manually checking case statuses and verifying court dates, rather than relying entirely on electronic notifications. The judge ruled that the failure to appear was due to the legal team’s lack of due diligence.

The judge also pointed out procedural errors by Nakalembe’s legal team, including an incorrect response period on the summons—15 days instead of the required 30 days for government cases. Additionally, no affidavit of service was on record to verify that the summons were properly served. Under Order 9, Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a suit can be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to properly serve the summons or advance the case.

The High Court’s decision to deny the application for reinstatement sends a clear message to lawyers: while digital tools like ECCMIS offer convenience, they should not be relied upon exclusively. Legal practitioners must maintain a hands-on approach, double-checking court schedules, verifying service of documents, and ensuring compliance with all procedural requirements. The court’s decision emphasizes that citing system errors does not meet the legal standard of “sufficient cause” for setting aside a dismissal.