Wakilii

Mwesige and Others v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council and Another (HCT-01-LD-CS-0006-2012)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1427 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on oral application for adjournment in a land dispute suit instituted in 2012, with 1st Defendant seeking dismissal for want of prosecution
Decision
Matter adjourned for final time with strict conditions; parties directed to file Joint Scheduling Memorandum by 9 February 2026

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 granted a final adjournment despite the plaintiffs' thirteen-year delay in prosecuting their land dispute suit, finding that while their conduct bordered on abuse of process, dismissal would deny them their day in court on serious allegations involving customary land rights and fraud. The Court directed that on the next hearing date the plaintiffs must proceed without further excuse or the suit will be decided in their absence under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Matter adjourned for final time with strict conditions; parties directed to file Joint Scheduling Memorandum by 9 February 2026

Facts

The plaintiffs, as administrators of estates and descendants of original customary landowners, sued in 2012 claiming ownership of land at Nyabukara, Fort Portal Municipality, alleging their forefathers settled the land in the early 1900s. They claim the late Hajji Mustafa Isingoma donated only a portion containing a mosque and school to the 1st defendant (Uganda Muslim Supreme Council), but the 1st defendant fraudulently obtained freehold title to the entire parcel including the suit land. The 1st defendant denies fraud, asserting it acquired the land customarily from the King of Tooro in 1910 and that the plaintiffs' families were merely caretakers and tenants. The suit has never proceeded to hearing despite being instituted in 2012. On 15 October 2025, plaintiffs' counsel sought adjournment citing inability of scattered plaintiffs to attend court. The 1st defendant opposed and sought dismissal for want of prosecution, noting repeated adjournments over thirteen years.

Issues

  1. Whether, in light of the Plaintiffs' repeated failures to prosecute the suit diligently over a period exceeding thirteen years, the Court should exercise its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution or grant an adjournment.

Orders

  • The suit is adjourned for the last time.
  • On the hearing date, the Plaintiffs must call all their witnesses and proceed with their case without further excuse; any failure to do so will result in the suit being decided under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The parties are directed to file a Joint Scheduling Memorandum by 9th February 2026, on which date the case shall be mentioned and given a hearing date.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Discretion to Grant — Sufficient Cause
The court's discretion to grant an adjournment under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be exercised judiciously, taking into account the history of the case, the reasons advanced for the delay, the potential prejudice to the parties, and the overarching goal of achieving substantial justice.
Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Exceptional Circumstances — Practice Directions
Under the Constitution (Adjournments for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, Legal Notice No. 5 of 2019, Clause 6(1), except in exceptional circumstances, the court shall not allow an adjournment of scheduled proceedings. Exceptional circumstances include unforeseeable matters arising during proceedings, unavailability of a key witness, need for legal representation or interpreter, illness supported by evidence, or any other cause the court deems fit.
Civil Procedure — Want of Prosecution — Dismissal — Last Resort
Dismissal for want of prosecution should be resorted to only as a last measure, particularly where the delay, though culpable, has not irreparably prejudiced the defendants or rendered a fair trial impossible, especially in cases involving serious allegations touching on fundamental constitutional rights.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (2)

  • Bokomo Trading Ltd v Rand Blair Trading t/a Momentum Feeds (HCCA No. 22 of 2011)
  • Kaaya v Crescent Transportation Ltd [2009] 1 EA 171

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mwesige and Others v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council and Another (HCT-01-LD-CS-0006-2012) [2025] UGHC 1427 (27 November 2025)
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.