Wakilii

Fred Kato v Registrar of Titles [2026] UGHCLD 30

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for an order compelling the Registrar of Titles to issue a certificate of title; called on for hearing in the absence of the applicant
Decision
Application dismissed for non-appearance of the applicant; no order as to costs

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 applicant sought an order compelling the Registrar of Titles to issue a certificate of title. On the hearing date, the respondent's counsel appeared but neither the applicant nor his advocates attended, although an affidavit of service showed due service. The court held that where a defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, Order 9, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the court to dismiss the suit. The application was accordingly dismissed for non-appearance, with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed for non-appearance of the applicant; no order as to costs

Facts

The applicant, Fred Kato, filed a notice of motion under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 37 of the Judicature Act seeking an order that the Registrar of Titles issue him a certificate of title for land comprised in Block 244, Plot 7550, together with costs. The application was fixed for hearing on 10 February 2026 at 2:30pm. On that date the respondent was represented by counsel, but neither the applicant nor his advocates, M/S Obed Mwebesa and Associated Advocates, attended court. An affidavit of service on the record showed that the parties, including the applicant's lawyers, had been duly served on 5 February 2026 by the Land Division court process server. Respondent's counsel applied for dismissal of the application under Order 9, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules for non-appearance of the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether the application should be dismissed under Order 9, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules where the respondent appears but the applicant does not appear at the hearing.

Orders

  • The Application is hereby dismissed under Order 9, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 for non-appearance of the Applicant.
  • There is no order for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Non-Appearance at Hearing — Mandatory Dismissal under Order 9 Rule 22
Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, and there is proof of due service, the court shall dismiss the suit under Order 9, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fred Kato v Registrar of Titles [2026] UGHCLD 30 (11 February 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.