Wakilii

Semakula Robert and Another v Kibirige Sebunya Frank and Another (Civil Suit No365 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 63 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application in the Land Division to strike out the plaint in Civil Suit No. 365 of 2023 for failure to disclose a cause of action
Decision
Application to strike out the plaint dismissed; main suit (Civil Suit No. 365 of 2023) proceeds on the amended plaint

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 to strike out the plaint in a land suit for failure to disclose a cause of action was dismissed as overtaken by events. The court noted a letter indicating the matter had been overtaken, and accepted that the plaint had since been amended, curing the alleged defect. Although the respondents' counsel sought costs because the applicants' counsel neither appeared nor filed a formal notice of withdrawal, the court declined to award costs because the first respondent had not filed a reply to the application. The application was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application to strike out the plaint dismissed; main suit (Civil Suit No. 365 of 2023) proceeds on the amended plaint

Facts

The applicants filed a miscellaneous application arising out of Civil Suit No. 365 of 2023 in the Land Division, seeking to strike out the plaint on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action. Before the hearing, counsel for the applicants had indicated an intention to withdraw the application but filed no notice of withdrawal; a letter dated 3 March 2026 stated that the matter had been overtaken by events. On the hearing date neither the first respondent nor counsel for the applicants appeared. Counsel for the respondents, who were unaware of any withdrawal, asked for costs because no communication had been made. The court noted that the plaint in the main suit had been amended in the preceding year, which cured the alleged defect complained of in the application. The first respondent had not filed a reply to the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to strike out the plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action remained live after the plaint had been amended.
  2. Whether costs should be awarded where the applicants' counsel neither appeared nor filed a formal notice of withdrawal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed as overtaken by events.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Application Rendered Moot by Subsequent Amendment of the Plaint
An application to strike out a plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action is overtaken by events and will be dismissed where the plaint has since been amended so as to cure the alleged defect.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Effect of Failure to File a Reply to an Application
Costs may be withheld on the dismissal of an interlocutory application where the party seeking costs has not filed a reply to the application, notwithstanding the applicant's failure to appear or to file a formal notice of withdrawal.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Semakula Robert and Another v Kibirige Sebunya Frank and Another (Civil Suit No365 of 2023) [2026] UGHCLD 63 (17 March 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.