Aisha Daisy Buruku v Paul Kyasanku and Others [2026] UGHCLD 76

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.

Holding

The court dismissed a land suit for want of prosecution. The plaintiff's last step was the filing of a receipt on 9 May 2022 and nothing further was done. Under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, where no application is made or step taken for two years by either party with a view to proceeding with the suit, the court may dismiss it, and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act preserves the inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process. A plaintiff pursuing a remedy must take all necessary steps to achieve expeditious determination of the claim. The suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

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

Facts

The plaintiff filed a suit concerning land comprised in Busiro Block 436 Plots 755, 756, 757, 758, 760 and 761 (formerly Plot 147, originally Plot 36) at Nalugala, Katabi Town Council, Wakiso District, measuring about four acres. She alleged the land had been fraudulently acquired and registered by the first, second and third defendants despite notice of her interest, her late husband having purchased it and she having been in possession since 1997. She sought declarations of fraud and ownership, cancellation of the subdivided titles by the Commissioner Land Registration, registration in her name, vacant possession, a permanent injunction, general and punitive damages, and mesne profits. The last step taken by the plaintiff was the filing of a receipt by her lawyers on 9 May 2022. Thereafter she took no step to prosecute the suit for over two years.

Issues

1. Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution where the plaintiff has taken no step in the proceedings 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 plaintiff for over two years.
• There is no order for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 17 r.6(1)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98

Cases cited (1)

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

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