Mutasa Swithim and Others v Josephine Nazziwa Sewanyana (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 73 of 2025)
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 dismissed the miscellaneous appeal under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules with costs to the respondent after the applicant and their advocate failed to appear in court without providing any reason for their non-attendance.
Outcome
Application dismissed for non-attendance
Facts
This was a miscellaneous appeal arising from Civil Suit No. 283 of 2025. On 4 June 2026, the matter came before the High Court Land Division. The respondent and her counsel appeared in court. The applicant and their advocate did not appear. Counsel for the respondent noted that the applicant's counsel had been present at the previous hearing but neither the applicant nor their advocate was in court on this occasion. No reason was given for their non-attendance. The respondent's counsel applied for dismissal of the application with costs.
Issues
- Whether the application should be dismissed for non-attendance of the applicant and their advocate
Orders
- Application dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Legislation cited (1)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.22
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.