Wakilii

Annet Kalanzi Mpiima and Another v Energo Projekt Niskogradnja and Another (Civil Suit No. 489 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 133 · 2026 Suit Abated AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit seeking declaration that leasehold agreement is void ab initio
Decision
Suit abated for failure to prosecute

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court Land Division struck out the suit under Order 11A rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules for abatement. The plaintiffs failed to take serious steps to prosecute their case or apply for Summons for Directions after filing their reply on 14 August 2024. No orders as to costs were made.

Outcome

Suit abated for failure to prosecute

Facts

The plaintiffs instituted the suit on 28 May 2024 seeking a declaration that a leasehold agreement executed on 21 November 2008 with Mpiima Geoffrey Ssaku was void ab initio. The defendants filed their Written Statement of Defence on 9 July 2024. The plaintiffs filed their reply on 14 August 2024. After filing their reply, the plaintiffs took no serious steps to prosecute the case and did not apply for Summons for Directions as required under Order 11A rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit should abate for failure to prosecute or apply for Summons for Directions

Orders

  • The suit abates under Order 11A rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • No orders as to costs.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Annet_Kalanzi_Mpiima_and_Another_v_Energo_Projekt_Niskogradnja_and_Another_(Civil_Suit_No._489_of_2024)_[2026]_UGHCLD_133_(14_April_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.