Godfrey Nyakana and Another v Gab Holdings Ltd [2026] UGHCLD 120
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 sought an extension of time to furnish security of UGX 25,000,000 for due performance of a decree. The court found that the applicants had taken no steps to prosecute their application, which had been pending for more than two years and thus constituted case backlog. The court held there was no reason to extend the period any further and dismissed the application under section 17(2) of the Judicature Act, making no order as to costs.
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed for want of prosecution; no costs ordered
Facts
By notice of motion filed on 8 April 2024, the applicants sought an extension of time for compliance, and of the time within which to furnish security for due performance of a decree, equivalent to UGX 25,000,000. The application arose from an earlier miscellaneous application and from Civil Suit No. 593 of 2013. On perusing the record, the court found that the applicants had taken no steps to prosecute the application, which had remained in the system for more than two years and therefore fell within the category of case backlog.
Issues
- Whether the court should extend the time within which the applicants were to furnish security for due performance of the decree.
Orders
- Application dismissed under section 17(2) of the Judicature Act.
- No orders as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.