Wakilii

Sekikubo Juliano and Others v Mubiru William [2026] UGHCLD 16

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by chamber summons for stay of execution pending determination of a civil appeal, dismissed by the court for want of prosecution
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

An application for stay of execution pending appeal, filed in March 2023, was dismissed where the applicants took no further step and there was no indication of service on the respondent. The court applied Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permits dismissal where no application is made or step taken for two years with a view to proceeding, together with the inherent power preserved by section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to prevent abuse of process and serve the ends of justice. A party pursuing a remedy must take all steps available to secure expeditious determination of the claim. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed for want of prosecution

Facts

The applicants filed a chamber summons on 13 March 2023 seeking an order for stay of execution pending the determination of Civil Appeal No. 1426 of 2022. After filing the chamber summons on ECCMIS, the applicants took no further step in the matter, and there was no indication on the record that the application had been served on the respondent. By the time the matter came before the court in January 2026, more than two years had elapsed without any application being made or step taken by the applicants with a view to proceeding.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution should be dismissed where the applicants took no step to prosecute it for over two years.

Orders

  • This case is hereby dismissed under Order 17, Rule 6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 for non action by the Applicants for over two years.
  • There is no order for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Order 17 rule 6(1) Civil Procedure Rules
Where no application is made or step taken by either party for a period of two years with a view to proceeding with a suit or application, the court may order the matter dismissed under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Duty to Prosecute Diligently — Inherent Power of Court under section 98 Civil Procedure Act
A party in pursuit of a remedy must take all necessary steps at its disposal to achieve an expeditious determination of the claim, and the court may invoke its inherent power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to dismiss a dormant matter in the interests of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of court.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Nilani Vs. Patel & others (1969) EA 340

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sekikubo Juliano and Others v Mubiru William [2026] UGHCLD 16 (29 January 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.