Wakilii

David Yiga v Jimmy Mukalazi [2026] UGHCLD 109

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application in the High Court (Land Division) arising from execution proceedings (EMA No. 0128 of 2024) in Civil Suit No. 250 of 2013
Decision
Application dismissed as improperly before court; no costs awarded

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 where an earlier application by the same applicant (MA 2332/2024) had been dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules for non-appearance, Order 9 rule 23 precludes the applicant from bringing a fresh application or suit on the same subject matter. The applicant's remedy is to apply to set aside the dismissal, not to file afresh. The present application was accordingly not properly before the court and was dismissed under Order 9 rule 23, with no order as to costs because the respondent had not yet filed an affidavit in reply.

Outcome

Application dismissed as improperly before court; no costs awarded

Facts

The applicant, David Yiga, filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2241 of 2025 arising from execution proceedings (EMA No. 0128 of 2024), which themselves arose from Civil Suit No. 250 of 2013. Counsel for the applicant informed the court that the application had not been signed by the Registrar and that counsel for the respondent had declined to receive the unsigned copy served on him. The respondent had not filed an affidavit in reply. On examining the pleadings, the court found that the applicant had previously filed a similar application, Miscellaneous Application No. 2332 of 2024, which was dismissed on 10 April 2025 under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was properly before the court given that an earlier similar application by the applicant had been dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed under Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Non-Appearance under O.9 r.22 CPR — Bar on Filing a Fresh Application under O.9 r.23
Where a suit or application has been dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Order 9 rule 23 precludes the plaintiff or applicant from instituting a fresh suit or application on the same subject matter, and any such fresh filing is improperly before the court and liable to dismissal.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.22
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.23

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

David Yiga v Jimmy Mukalazi [2026] UGHCLD 109 (19 March 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.