Mashate Francis and Another v Dhalval Devang Kumar Barrot (Miscellaneous Application No. 300 of 2024)
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
Application dismissed under Judicature Act s.17(2) for want of prosecution. The applicants filed an application seeking leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling ordering security for costs but failed to serve the respondent or prosecute the matter for nearly one year after filing.
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of prosecution
Facts
The applicants filed a Notice of Motion on 8 February 2024 seeking leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling delivered on 11 December 2023. In that earlier ruling, the court ordered the applicants to pay security for costs in the sum of UGX 400,000,000 in the underlying civil suit. After filing the application, there was no follow-up action by the applicants. The application was not served on the respondent, as evidenced by the absence of an affidavit of service.
Issues
- Whether the applicants should be granted leave to appeal the ruling ordering security for costs of UGX 400,000,000
Orders
- Application dismissed under section 17(2) of the Judicature Act.
Legislation cited (4)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.2
- Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.3
- Judicature Act s.17(2)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.