Wakilii

Ipiot Dorcas and Another v Asekenye Caroline Juliet and Others [2026] UGHCLD 99

High Court · 2026 Suit Dismissed for Want of Prosecution AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Oral application by defendants at hearing of a first instance land suit to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution following non-appearance of the plaintiffs
Decision
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants

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

Where a suit called for hearing is not attended by the plaintiffs or their advocates and no explanation is offered for the non-attendance, the court may dismiss the suit under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court noted a history of adjournments at the plaintiffs' instance and an earlier suit between the same parties dismissed for want of prosecution, granted the defendants' oral application, and dismissed the suit with costs to the defendants. The ruling turns on the plaintiffs' default in appearance rather than on any determination of the merits of the land claim.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants

Facts

The plaintiffs, suing through their lawful attorney, had earlier instituted HCCS No. 1071 of 2019 against the defendants, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. They then filed the present suit in 2021 in the Land Division. The matter had been adjourned on several occasions at the instance of the plaintiffs. On the date fixed for the proceedings, neither the plaintiffs nor their advocates appeared, and no reason was advanced for their non-attendance. Counsel for the defendants appeared and applied orally for dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution where the plaintiffs and their advocates failed to appear at the hearing and gave no reason for their non-attendance.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Non-appearance of Plaintiff under O.9 r.22 CPR
Where a suit is called for hearing and neither the plaintiff nor the plaintiff's advocate appears, and no reason is given for the non-attendance, the court may dismiss the suit for want of prosecution under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with costs to the defendants.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.22

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ipiot Dorcas and Another v Asekenye Caroline Juliet and Others [2026] UGHCLD 99 (16 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.