Wakilii

Akuludu Rophino and Others v Nasur Alutu and Another (Civil Appeal 21 of 2020)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 717 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court dismissal for want of prosecution
Decision
Appeal dismissed as incompetent and for want of prosecution

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

Held that an appeal from an order made under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules dismissing a suit for want of prosecution is not appealable as of right. Section 77 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 44 Rule 2 require leave of court for such appeals. The appellant failed to seek leave from the trial court as required by Order 44 Rule 3. The appeal was also not prosecuted, as the appellant filed neither a record of appeal nor submissions despite court directions. Appeal dismissed as incompetent and for want of prosecution.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as incompetent and for want of prosecution

Facts

The appellants appealed a decision of the Chief Magistrate's Court of Arua which had dismissed their land suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules on 9 September 2020. The appeal was filed on 24 September 2020. When the parties appeared before the High Court on 3 March 2026 for weeding out, the lower court file had not been traced. The record of proceedings was certified and made available on 19 March 2026. On 17 April 2026, the court issued directions requiring the appellant to file a record of appeal and submissions by 11 May 2026. The appellant took no action to prosecute the appeal and filed neither a record of appeal nor submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant prosecuted the appeal by filing the required record of appeal and submissions.
  2. Whether an appeal lies as of right from an order dismissing a suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Whether the appellant was required to obtain leave to appeal from the trial court.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Competence — Leave Required for Certain Orders
An appeal from an order made under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules dismissing a suit for want of prosecution is not appealable as of right, as such orders are not mentioned under Section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act or Order 44 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Statutory Right — No Inherent Appellate Jurisdiction
Appeals are creatures of statute and there is no express right of appeal unless a statute creates one; there is no inherent appellate jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave Requirement — Order 44 Rule 3
Where an order is not appealable as of right, the appellant must seek leave of the trial court to appeal its decision as required by Order 44 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules before filing an appeal.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • Raphael Baku and another Versus Attorney General, Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Akuludu Rophino and Others v Nasur Alutu and Another (Civil Appeal 21 of 2020) [2026] UGHC 717 (1 July 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.