Namubiru Caroline and Another v Muwanga Alex Boaz and Others [2026] UGHCLD 74
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 plaintiff files a plaint and thereafter takes no application or step with a view to proceeding with the suit for a period of two years, the court may dismiss the suit under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, read with its inherent power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act. The plaintiffs filed an unsigned and undated plaint on ECCMIS on 1 November 2023 and took no further step. The court held that a litigant seeking a remedy must take all necessary steps at his disposal to secure expeditious determination of the claim. The suit was dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs.
Outcome
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs
Facts
The plaintiffs filed a plaint on ECCMIS on 1 November 2023 seeking declarations that they were lawful or bona fide occupants of a kibanja at Namavundu, Kasangati Town Council, Wakiso District, on land comprised in Kyadondo Block 185 (formerly Plot 1131, later plots 12436, 12437 and 12438, now 13022, 13023 and 13024), measuring about two acres valued at UGX 200,000,000. They also sought declarations that the defendants were trespassers and that their eviction of the plaintiffs was illegal, special damages of UGX 74,110,400 for property destroyed during the eviction, a permanent injunction, general and exemplary damages, interest and costs. The court noted that the plaint was neither dated nor signed by counsel, and that the accompanying summons to file a defence and summary of evidence were likewise unsigned. After filing, the plaintiffs filed no further pleadings or documents and took no step to prosecute the suit.
Issues
- Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution where the plaintiffs took no step to prosecute the suit for over two years after filing the plaint.
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17, Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282.
- There is no order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
Cases cited (1)
- Nilani Vs. Patel & others (1969) EA, 340, at page 341
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.