Wakilii

Balikuddembe Kaweesa and Another v Administrator General and Others [2026] UGHCLD 18

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application arising out of High Court Civil Suit No. 706 of 2019, dismissed by the court for want of prosecution
Decision
Application dismissed for want of prosecution; 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 the application for want of prosecution under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, the last step taken by the applicants having been a letter filed on 30 June 2022, more than two years before the ruling. Relying on Nilani v Patel, the court reaffirmed that a party pursuing a remedy must take all necessary steps at its disposal to secure expeditious determination of the claim. Inaction for over two years entitles the court to dismiss the matter. No order as to costs was made.

Outcome

Application dismissed for want of prosecution; no order as to costs

Facts

The applicants brought Miscellaneous Application No. 1640 of 2021 arising out of High Court Civil Suit No. 706 of 2019 against the Administrator General and five other respondents. The first respondent filed an affidavit in reply on 24 March 2022. On 30 June 2022 the applicants, through their lawyer, filed a letter dated 29 June 2022 expressing an intention to cross-examine the second respondent. That filing on ECCMIS was the last step taken by the applicants on the file. No further application was made or step taken by either party with a view to proceeding with the matter for more than two years thereafter, prompting the court to consider dismissal for want of prosecution.

Issues

  1. Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution where no step was taken by the applicants for a period exceeding two years.

Orders

  • This case is hereby 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 Applicants for over two years.
  • There is no order for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Two Years of Inaction under Order 17 rule 6(1)
Where no application is made or step taken by either party for a period of two years with a view to proceeding with a suit, the court may order the suit dismissed under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and may invoke its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to do so.
Civil Procedure — Duty of Diligence — Expeditious Prosecution of Claims
A party in pursuit of a remedy must take all necessary steps at its disposal to achieve an expeditious determination of the claim, and failure to do so exposes the matter to dismissal.

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.

Balikuddembe Kaweesa and Another v Administrator General and Others [2026] UGHCLD 18 (27 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.