Wakilii

Bukenya Ismail and 3 Others v Rogers Hanns Ddungu (Miscellaneous Application No. 740 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 302 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to dismiss main suit on grounds of mootness arising from Civil Suit No. 957 of 2021
Decision
Application dismissed; main suit to proceed to hearing on merits

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 held that the doctrine of mootness did not apply because the main suit challenged the lawfulness of the lease termination by re-entry in August 2021, not the natural expiry of the lease in January 2022. The cause of action remained live despite the subsequent expiry of the lease term. The court also denied the applicants' attempted withdrawal of the application where costs had been incurred by the respondent. The application was dismissed with costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Outcome

Application dismissed; main suit to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The applicants were registered proprietors of mailo land comprised in Kibuga Block 38 Plot 119. The land had been leased by their predecessor in title, Zedekiah Lwere, to the respondent for 49 years from 31st January 1973 pursuant to a lease agreement dated 24th August 1972. In February 2021, the applicants applied to the Commissioner Land Registration to note a re-entry on the lease for failure to pay rent. On 2nd August 2021, the Commissioner issued an order noting the re-entry and the respondent's leasehold certificate of title was cancelled. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 957 of 2021 on 18th October 2021 challenging the lawfulness of the re-entry. The lease term would have naturally expired on 31st January 2022. The applicants then brought this application seeking dismissal of the main suit on grounds that it had become moot following the expiry of the lease by effluxion of time.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Suit No. 957 of 2021 is moot following the expiry of the lease by effluxion of time on 31st January 2022.
  2. Whether the applicants' intended withdrawal of the application should be allowed.
  3. Whether the application to dismiss the main suit should be granted.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.
  • Intended withdrawal of the application denied.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Mootness — Application of Doctrine — Lease Termination by Re-entry
A suit challenging the lawfulness of a lease termination by re-entry does not become moot merely because the lease subsequently expires by effluxion of time, where the cause of action is the legality of the earlier termination and not the natural expiry of the lease term.
Civil Procedure — Mootness — Live Controversy — Remedies Available
A case is not moot where a live controversy remains and the court retains the ability to grant effective remedies such as damages or compensation under the Civil Procedure Act or the Registration of Titles Act, even if some of the original remedies sought may no longer be available.
Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of Application — Leave of Court Required
Under Order 25 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a plaintiff may not withdraw or discontinue a suit without leave of court after the defence has been filed, and the court may refuse leave where the opposing party has expended time and money in defence of the application and the withdrawal does not address costs.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (5)

  • Abdu Katuntu v MTN Uganda Limited and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 248 of 2012)
  • Julius Maganda v NRM (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 154 of 2010)
  • Pine Pharmacy Ltd and 8 Others v National Drug Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 142 of 2016)
  • Joseph Borowski v Attorney General of Canada [1989] 1 SCR
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bukenya_Ismail_and_3_Others_v_Rogers_Hanns_Ddungu_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._740_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_302_(16_September_2025)
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.