Lwanga Eliphaz and Another v Namakula Betty (Deceased) and Another (Civil Suit No. 169 of 2023)
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 necessary party dies during proceedings and the court grants time for substitution, prolonged failure by the plaintiff to take any steps to bring a legal representative on record constitutes want of prosecution. The suit was dismissed under Order 17 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules without prejudice to revival upon sufficient cause shown.
Outcome
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution without prejudice to revival
Facts
The Plaintiffs instituted a suit in 2023 concerning land in which the 1st Defendant, Namakula Betty, was the registered proprietor and a necessary party. The 2nd Defendant, the Commissioner for Land Registration, did not file a defence. On 19th May 2025, counsel informed the court that the 1st Defendant had died and that the family was in the process of effecting substitution. The court adjourned to 2nd October 2025 to allow necessary steps to be taken. No application for substitution was filed, no legal representative was brought on record, and no explanation was offered for the inaction. On 25th November 2025, the Plaintiffs' counsel wrote requesting closure of the file.
Issues
- Whether the suit should be withdrawn or dismissed for want of prosecution following prolonged failure to regularise proceedings after the death of a necessary party
Orders
- Death of 1st Defendant Namakula Betty disclosed on 19th May 2025 noted, and time granted for regularisation noted.
- No application for substitution or other step taken since disclosure noted, and no explanation offered for prolonged inaction.
- 1st Defendant being a necessary party, suit remained dormant by reason of Plaintiffs' default.
- Suit dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Dismissal without prejudice to right of any party to apply for revival upon sufficient cause shown.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.