Wakilii

Ojok & Another v Anyinge & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 68 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 11 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside order dismissing land appeal for want of prosecution and reinstate appeal for hearing on merit
Decision
Application dismissed; appeal remains 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 court dismissed the application to set aside the dismissal order. The first applicant's claim abated due to his death without appointment of a personal representative. The second applicant failed to demonstrate diligence in prosecuting the appeal over more than a decade. The court held that inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act should not be exercised to indulge dilatory litigants who warehouse proceedings and fail to prosecute their cases timeously.

Outcome

Application dismissed; appeal remains dismissed for want of prosecution

Facts

The applicants sought to set aside an order by Gaswaga J dismissing their land appeal for want of prosecution on 29 June 2023. The appeal arose from a land claim decided in 2013. The memorandum of appeal was lodged in 2016 though numbered as 2013. Between 2016 and 2022, the applicants took minimal steps to prosecute the appeal. On 24 February 2022, counsel informed the court she had lost touch with her clients. In November 2022, counsel wrote requesting the appeal be fixed for hearing. The appeal was dismissed on 29 June 2023 with neither party present. Counsel learned of the dismissal in February 2024 but only filed the present application in August 2024. The first applicant died at some point but no representative was appointed. The respondents had sold part of the disputed land pursuant to the decree.

Issues

  1. Whether the application by the first applicant abated following his death without representation
  2. Whether there is a basis for the court to exercise its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside the order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and reinstate it for hearing on merit

Orders

  • Application of first applicant struck out with no order as to costs following his death without representation
  • Application of second applicant dismissed with costs to the respondents

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Death of Party — Abatement — Failure to Appoint Personal Representative
Where a party to proceedings dies and no personal representative or administrator ad litem is appointed to further the interests of the deceased, the action abates as to that party and must be struck out with no order as to costs, as a non-existing person cannot be condemned in costs.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Remedy
Where an appeal is dismissed under Order 43 rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution, the Civil Procedure Rules do not provide a specific remedy for reinstatement. The court may exercise its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the appeal, but only on a proper case and subject to such terms as the court may specify.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Exercise — Diligence Required
To invoke the court's inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution, an applicant must demonstrate that they exhibited diligence in prosecuting the appeal at the time it was dismissed. Courts will not exercise inherent powers to indulge dilatory litigants who warehouse proceedings and prosecute them at their convenience.
Civil Procedure — Conduct of Litigation — Warehousing of Proceedings
A litigant cannot be allowed to warehouse proceedings until it is convenient to pursue them. Where a party files a case but fails to prosecute it for an extended period without sufficient cause, the court is entitled to dismiss the matter and decline to reinstate it, even in land disputes. Litigants who do not wish to prosecute their cases should not file them in the first place.
Land & Property — Land Disputes — No Automatic Right to Reinstatement
While land matters are important and sometimes sensitive, this does not give litigants license to sit back and do nothing to prosecute their cases. It would be wrong for a litigant to expect that courts will never dismiss a land matter or that dismissal orders will be set aside as a matter of course merely because the subject is land.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (9)

  • Henry Mukasa Mawangala and Others v George William Kalule (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 1008 of 2023)
  • Fort Hall Bakery Supply Company v Frederick Muigai Wangoe [1959] EA 474
  • Benjamin Sejjabi t/a Namataba v Timber Manufacturers Limited [1978] HCB 202
  • Walimu Cooperative Savings and Credit Union v Okumu Benjamin and Another (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 101 of 2022)
  • Makerere University v St. Mark Education Institute (High Court Civil Suit No. 378 of 1993)
  • Re Mahamaya Banerjee AIR 1989 Cal 106
  • Obote David v Odora Yasoni (Miscellaneous Application No. 50 of 2022)
  • Chad Nyakairu Vs. Edrisa Nayakairu & Steve Williams
  • Uganda Baati Ltd v Mubangizi Julius (Civil Application No. 07 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ojok & Another v Anyinge & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 68 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 11 (16 January 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.