Wakilii

Sonko Richard and Another v Amon Lufunda and Another [2026] UGHCLD 26

High Court · 2026 Suit Dismissed for Want of Prosecution AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling dismissing a first instance civil suit for want of prosecution
Decision
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs

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 suit for want of prosecution. Under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, where no application is made or step taken by either party with a view to proceeding with the suit for a period of two years, the court may order the suit dismissed. The last step on the file was disposal of a miscellaneous application on 27 April 2021, after which neither party took any further action. Relying on the inherent power preserved by section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and the principle that a plaintiff pursuing a remedy must take all necessary steps for expeditious determination of the claim, the court dismissed the suit with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs

Facts

The plaintiffs instituted a suit by plaint, recorded in the ruling as filed on 27 February 2015, over a matter before the Land Division. The last step taken on the file was Miscellaneous Application No. 99 of 2021, which was disposed of on 27 April 2021. After that date neither party made any application, took any step, or followed up on the file with a view to proceeding with the suit. The court, on reviewing the file, considered the effect of the parties' inaction for a period exceeding two years and proceeded to make orders disposing of the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit should be dismissed where no application was made or step taken by either party with a view to proceeding with the suit for over two years.

Orders

  • The case is 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 parties 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) Two-Year Inaction
Where, in a case not otherwise provided for, no application is made and no step is taken by either party with a view to proceeding with the suit for a period of two years, the court may order the suit to be dismissed under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Duty of Diligence — Plaintiff's Obligation to Prosecute Claim Expeditiously
A plaintiff in pursuit of a remedy must take all necessary steps at his disposal to achieve an expeditious determination of his claim, and the court may invoke its inherent power preserved by section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to dispose of a dormant suit in the interests of justice and to prevent abuse of process.

Legislation cited (2)

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.

Sonko Richard and Another v Amon Lufunda and Another [2026] UGHCLD 26 (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.