Annet Kalanzi Mpiima and Another v Energo Projekt Niskogradnja and Another [2026] UGHCLD 133
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
Where a plaintiff, after the close of pleadings, takes no serious steps to prosecute the suit and fails to apply for summons for directions as required by Order 11A rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the suit abates by operation of Order 11A rule 1(6). The court, on perusal of the record showing inaction from August 2024, declared the suit abated and made no order as to costs.
Outcome
Suit declared abated for failure to take steps to prosecute or apply for summons for directions
Facts
The plaintiffs filed the suit on 28 May 2024 seeking, among other relief, a declaration that a leasehold agreement executed on 21 November 2008 with Mpiima Geoffrey Ssaku was void ab initio. The defendants filed a written statement of defence on 9 July 2024 and the plaintiffs replied on 14 August 2024. Thereafter, on perusal of the record, the court found that the plaintiffs had taken no serious steps to prosecute the suit and had not applied for summons for directions as required by the Civil Procedure Rules.
Issues
- Whether the suit abated where the plaintiffs took no steps to prosecute the case or apply for summons for directions after the close of pleadings.
Orders
- The suit abates under Order 11A rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.