Wakilii

Nakate Deborah Kikaziki v Kapimpi Godfrey [2026] UGHCLD 207

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for stay of execution of judgment and decree in HCCS No. 124 of 2014 pending intended appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed for want of prosecution

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 applicant filed a notice of motion seeking a stay of execution pending appeal but took no further step after filing and gave no indication that the motion was served on the respondent. The Court invoked its inherent power under section 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act Cap 16 to curtail delay and prevent abuse of court process, noting that a party pursuing a remedy must take all necessary steps to secure expeditious determination of the claim. The application was accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed for want of prosecution

Facts

The applicant filed a notice of motion via ECCMIS on 14 June 2022 seeking an order staying execution of the judgment and decree, and any other execution proceedings, in HCCS No. 124 of 2014 pending disposal of an intended appeal. After filing the notice of motion the applicant took no further step in the matter, and there was nothing on the record indicating that the application had been served on the respondent. The matter came before the Court roughly four years after filing without having been prosecuted.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution should be dismissed for want of prosecution where the applicant took no step after filing the notice of motion and did not serve the respondent.

Orders

  • The suit is hereby dismissed under Section 17 (2) (a) of the Judicature Act Cap 16 for want of prosecution.
  • There is no order for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Inherent Power of the High Court under Judicature Act s.17(2)(a)
A party who files an application and thereafter takes no step to prosecute it, including failing to serve it on the opposite party, risks dismissal for want of prosecution, the High Court being empowered by section 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act Cap 16 to exercise its inherent powers to curtail delay and prevent abuse of court process.
Civil Procedure — Duty of Diligence — Expeditious Prosecution of Claims
A litigant in pursuit of a remedy must take all necessary steps at his or her disposal to achieve an expeditious determination of the claim.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Nilani Vs. Patel & others (1969) EA, 340, at page 341

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakate Deborah Kikaziki v Kapimpi Godfrey [2026] UGHCLD 207 (31 May 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.