Wakilii

Kigongo Godfrey v Commissioner Land Registration [2026] UGHCLD 19

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Notice of motion seeking orders compelling transfer of registered land; dismissed by the court for want of prosecution
Decision
Application dismissed for want of prosecution; 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 court dismissed a notice of motion seeking orders for transfer of registered land because the applicant had taken no step in the matter for more than two years after filing on 12 December 2023. Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules permits dismissal where no application is made or step taken for two years by either party with a view to proceeding with the suit, and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act preserves the court's inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process. A party pursuing a remedy must take all steps available to secure expeditious determination of the claim. No order as to costs was made.

Outcome

Application dismissed for want of prosecution; no order as to costs

Facts

The applicant filed a notice of motion on 12 December 2023 seeking orders that the Commissioner Land Registration effect the transfer and change of ownership of land comprised in Plot 365, Block 157, Kyadondo into his names, and that he bear the costs of the application. After filing, the applicant took no further step in the proceedings and never followed up on the matter before the court. By the time the ruling was delivered on 27 January 2026, more than two years had passed since the last action taken by the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether the application should be dismissed where the applicant took no step to prosecute it for a period exceeding two years.

Orders

  • This case is hereby dismissed under Order 17, Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 for non action by the Applicant for over two years.
  • There is no order for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Order 17 rule 6(1) Civil Procedure Rules
Where no application is made or step taken by either party for a period of two years with a view to proceeding with a suit, the court may dismiss the suit under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and may do so in exercise of its inherent power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to prevent abuse of the process of court.
Civil Procedure — Duty to Prosecute — Diligence of Party Seeking Relief
A party in pursuit of a remedy must take all necessary steps at their disposal to achieve an expeditious determination of the claim, and failure to do so exposes the proceedings to dismissal.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Nilani Vs. Patel & others (1969) EA 340

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kigongo Godfrey v Commissioner Land Registration [2026] UGHCLD 19 (27 January 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.