Bilali Mawa v Ahmed Idris Nzeronge (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2019)

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 High Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution under Order 43 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act. The appellant failed to file written submissions within the timelines directed by the court, and the record of appeal was filed outside the prescribed period. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Arua for recovery of land measuring 25m by 15m at Oli B Cell, Arua Municipal Council. The appellant claimed to have purchased the land from Abdallah Abubaker in 2006 for UGX 1,100,000. The respondent claimed to have purchased the same land from the same seller in 2005 for UGX 1,350,000. The trial magistrate found both parties were equitable purchasers but held the respondent was first in time and therefore the owner. The suit was dismissed with costs. The appellant appealed. The High Court gave directions for filing the record of appeal and submissions by specified dates in October 2022. The record of appeal was filed on 24 January 2023, outside the timelines. No written submissions were filed by either party.

Issues

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution where the appellant failed to file submissions within court-ordered timelines.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
• Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 Rule 31
• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98

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