Wakilii

Edith Nantumbwe Kizito and Others v Wilberforce Ssekubwa and Others [2026] UGHCLD 93

High Court · 2026 Consent Order — Application Withdrawn AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application in the High Court (Land Division) arising from Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 441 of 2022, withdrawn by the applicants with the respondents' consent on agreed costs
Decision
Application withdrawn by consent with agreed costs of UGX 4,000,000 payable by the applicants

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The applicants, through the second applicant, confirmed in open court that the miscellaneous application should be withdrawn, and the respondents did not object save as to costs. The court permitted withdrawal as prayed and endorsed the parties' negotiated settlement on costs, ordering the applicants to pay UGX 4,000,000 to the respondents within one month, by 2 May 2026, failing which the first, second, third and fifth respondents would be at liberty to execute. The ruling determines no substantive question of land law and rests entirely on the parties' consent.

Outcome

Application withdrawn by consent with agreed costs of UGX 4,000,000 payable by the applicants

Facts

The applicants brought Miscellaneous Application No. 1366 of 2025 in the High Court, Land Division, arising from Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 441 of 2022. At the hearing the court heard both counsel and confirmed with the second applicant that the applicants wished to withdraw the application. The respondents raised no objection to the withdrawal, but sought their costs. The parties negotiated and agreed the costs payable, and invited the court to endorse their settlement terms on that issue. No substantive facts concerning the underlying land dispute are set out in the ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be permitted to withdraw the miscellaneous application.
  2. What costs order should follow the withdrawal of the application.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 1366 of 2025 is withdrawn as prayed by the applicants.
  • By consent of the parties, the applicants shall pay costs of UGX 4,000,000 to the respondents within one month, that is by 2 May 2026.
  • In the event the money is not paid within that period, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th respondents are at liberty to proceed with execution.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of Application — Consent Terms as to Costs
Where an applicant seeks to withdraw an application and the respondent does not object save as to costs, the court may permit withdrawal and endorse the parties' negotiated terms fixing the costs payable, including a date for payment and liberty to execute on default.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Edith Nantumbwe Kizito and Others v Wilberforce Ssekubwa and Others [2026] UGHCLD 93 (1 April 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.