Wakilii

Jemba Martin and Others v Nakalanzi Sylvia and Others (Civil Suit No. 891 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 360 · 2025 Suit Abated AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of kibanja and declarations of lawful purchase
Decision
Suit abated for non-compliance with procedural requirements

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 High Court Land Division ruled that the suit abated under Order 11A Rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules because the Plaintiffs failed to take out summons for directions within 28 days of the filing of the Written Statement of Defence, as mandatorily required by Order 11A Rule 1(2). The court made no order as to costs.

Outcome

Suit abated for non-compliance with procedural requirements

Facts

The Plaintiffs claimed to have purchased a kibanja of approximately 3 acres from Mrs. Nandawula Annet for UGX 120,000,000. The kibanja was carved from land comprised in Busiro Block 210 Plot 3 at Nandagira village, Wakiso district. The Plaintiffs alleged that Nandawula Annet was the daughter of the late Tewodolo Mugumu Sewanyana, the former owner of 7 acres, and that after his death, Bwojji Emmanuel obtained title to the entire 7 acres, leaving Nandawula Annet as a kibanja holder. The 1st Plaintiff subsequently sold portions of the kibanja to the other Plaintiffs. The Defendants, claiming to be beneficiaries of the estate of the late Bwojji Emmanuel, allegedly threatened to evict the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs filed suit on 25 September 2024 seeking recovery, permanent injunction, and declarations. The Defendants filed their Written Statements of Defence on 25 and 28 October 2025. The Plaintiffs failed to take out summons for directions within the prescribed 28-day period.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit should abate for failure by the Plaintiffs to take out summons for directions within the prescribed time.

Orders

  • The suit abated under Order 11A, Rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules due to failure by the Plaintiffs to take out Summons for directions within 28 days from the date of filing of the Written Statement of Defence.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Mandatory Requirement — Abatement of Suit
Where a suit has been instituted by way of plaint, the plaintiff must take out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of the last reply or rejoinder, and failure to comply with this mandatory requirement results in automatic abatement of the suit under Order 11A Rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Statutory Interpretation — Use of 'Shall' — Mandatory Compliance
The use of the word 'shall' in a procedural rule connotes that compliance with the provision is mandatory and not discretionary.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Abdu Kiwanuka Yiga v Abubaker Kaddu Kiberu (Misc Application No. 386 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jemba_Martin_and_Others_v_Nakalanzi_Sylvia_and_Others_(Civil_Suit_No._891_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_360_(7_November_2025)
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.