Kenneth Buyinza and Another v Kimera Henry [2026] UGHCLD 156
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 court dismissed a miscellaneous cause filed in the Land Division on the ground that no notice of motion appeared on the record. Where a cause is commenced by miscellaneous application but the initiating notice of motion is absent from the record, the proceedings are irregular and cannot be entertained. The cause was accordingly held irregular and dismissed without consideration of the merits. No costs order was recorded.
Outcome
Miscellaneous cause dismissed as irregular for want of a notice of motion on the record
Facts
The applicants filed a miscellaneous cause in the High Court, Land Division, on 6 March 2024. On examining the record, the court found that no notice of motion had been filed or was otherwise on the record to initiate the cause. The court did not consider the substance of any claim between the parties. On that basis alone the court declared the cause irregular and dismissed it.
Issues
- Whether a miscellaneous cause filed without a notice of motion on the record is properly before the court.
Orders
- The cause is irregular and is hereby dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.