Wakilii

Abdul Karim Kironde v Rogers Ddungu and Others [2026] UGHCLD 20

High Court · 2026 Suit Dismissed for Want of Prosecution AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of bona fide occupancy and injunction; ruling on dismissal for want of prosecution on the court's own motion
Decision
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The court dismissed a land suit for want of prosecution. The parties had failed to file a joint scheduling memorandum and trial bundles as directed and had taken no step in the matter since 6 May 2021, a period exceeding two years. Applying Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the inherent jurisdiction preserved by section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, and citing Nilani v Patel that a plaintiff pursuing a remedy must take all necessary steps to achieve expeditious determination of the claim, the court ordered dismissal of the suit with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs

Facts

The plaintiff sued three defendants seeking a declaration that he was a bona fide occupant of property comprised in LRV 118 Folio 7, Plot 4 Fort Road (formerly Plot 3, Old Kampala), a permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendants from claiming ownership of or evicting him from the suit property or alienating it, and general, punitive and exemplary damages with costs. At a hearing on 17 February 2021 the court directed the parties to file trial bundles, and at the hearing of 6 May 2021 directed them to file a joint scheduling memorandum. Neither the joint scheduling memorandum nor the trial bundles were ever filed. No party took any step in the matter after 6 May 2021, leaving the suit dormant for more than two years before the court delivered this ruling on 28 January 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution where no application had been made or step taken by either party for over two years.

Orders

  • The case is dismissed under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 for non-action by the parties for over two years.
  • There is no order for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Want of Prosecution — Dismissal Under Order 17 Rule 6(1) for Two Years' Inaction
Where no application is made or step taken by either party with a view to proceeding with a suit for a period of two years, the court may order the suit dismissed under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Duty of Diligence — Plaintiff's Obligation to Prosecute Claim Expeditiously
A plaintiff pursuing a remedy must take all necessary steps at his disposal to achieve an expeditious determination of his claim, and failure to comply with court directions such as filing a joint scheduling memorandum and trial bundles may justify dismissal of the suit.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Nilani Vs. Patel & others (1969) EA 340

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abdul Karim Kironde v Rogers Ddungu and Others [2026] UGHCLD 20 (28 January 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.