Nassuna Milly and Others v Ahmed Ebrahim Tejani (Civil Suit No. 398 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.

Holding

The High Court ruled that the suit abated under Order 11A Rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules because the Plaintiffs failed to take out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of filing of the written statement of defence as required by Order 11A Rule 1(2). No order for costs was made.

Outcome

Suit abated for non-compliance with procedural requirements

Facts

The Plaintiffs, administrators of the estate of the late Abisagi Namukasa, filed suit on 5 May 2025 seeking declarations of ownership over land comprised in Kibuga Block 29 Plot 85 at Mulago measuring 0.28 acres, an eviction order against the Defendant, mesne profits, and a permanent injunction. The Defendant filed a written statement of defence on 1 July 2025. The Plaintiffs filed no reply and did not take out summons for directions within 28 days of the filing of the defence as required by Order 11A Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

1. Whether the suit should abate for failure by the Plaintiffs to take out summons for directions within the prescribed time.

Orders

• The suit abated under Order 11A Rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules due to failure by the Plaintiffs to take out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of filing of the written statement of defence.
• No order for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 11A Rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 11A Rule 1(6)

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