Commissioner Land Registration v Stella Katwesige Mugisha [2026] UGHCLD 128
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 upheld the respondent's preliminary objection and held that an application to set aside an order that a suit proceed ex parte becomes nugatory and incompetent once judgment has been entered in that suit and the decree substantially executed, since the cause from which the application arises no longer subsists. Here the Commissioner Land Registration had already reinstated the respondent as registered proprietor and confirmed that only one certificate of title existed, so any intended defence was speculative. On the merits, the court further held that a mere expressed desire to prosecute, unsupported by any explanation for over three years of inactivity, does not constitute sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 18. Application dismissed with costs.
Outcome
Application to set aside dismissal of HCMA No. 0949 of 2021 dismissed with costs; judgment and decree in HCCS No. 0197 of 2018 stand
Facts
The respondent sued the Commissioner Land Registration in HCCS No. 0197 of 2018 challenging as illegal the cancellation of her certificate of title for land comprised in Kyadondo Block 185 Plot 12108 at Namugongo. The applicant, though duly served, filed no written statement of defence and the court ordered the suit to proceed ex parte. On 24 May 2021 the applicant filed HCMA No. 0949 of 2021 seeking to set aside the ex parte order and obtain leave to defend, but took no steps to prosecute it. On 10 November 2022 judgment was entered for the respondent, declaring the cancellation illegal and awarding general damages of UGX 120,000,000 and costs; a decree issued on 16 December 2022. The applicant thereafter reinstated the respondent's name on the register and, by correspondence dated 8 February 2024 to the National Physical Planning Board, confirmed that only one certificate of title existed over the property, held by the respondent. HCMA No. 0949 of 2021 was dismissed on 17 September 2024 for want of prosecution. On 18 November 2024 the applicant applied to set aside that dismissal, asserting only a continued desire to defend and alleging double titling involving the Registered Trustees of the Church of Uganda. The applicant filed no affidavit in rejoinder.
Issues
- Whether the application to set aside the dismissal of HCMA No. 0949 of 2021 was moot and overtaken by events, the main suit having been concluded and the decree substantially executed.
- Whether the applicant established sufficient cause for its failure to prosecute HCMA No. 0949 of 2021.
Orders
- Preliminary objection upheld; the application is overtaken by events and is nugatory and incompetent.
- The application is dismissed.
- Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature Act s.37
- Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.27
- Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.18
- Civil Procedure Rules O.17 r.16
- Civil Procedure Rules O.51 rr.1 and 3
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 rr.1 and 3
Cases cited (6)
- Mugo versus Wanjiri (1970) EA 481
- National Insurance Corporation versus Mugenyi & Co. Advocates HCB [1987] 28 CA
- Human Rights Network for Journalists and Another v Uganda Communications Commission and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 219 of 2013)
- Wanendeya William Giboni v Giboi Kibale Wambi (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2002)
- Saggu versus Road Motorcycles (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 258
- Titus Kidega Lak v Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Application No. 14 of 2000)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.