Wakilii

William Junju and Another v Rawji Salim Haiderrali and Others [2026] UGHCLD 24

High Court · 2026 Suit Dismissed for Want of Prosecution AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling by the court on its own motion dismissing a first instance land 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 a land suit for want of prosecution. The last step taken was the filing of the plaintiffs' scheduling memorandum on 5 March 2023, after which neither party took any step to proceed with the suit for over two years. Invoking Order 17 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the inherent jurisdiction preserved by section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held that a plaintiff pursuing a remedy must take all necessary steps to secure expeditious determination of the claim. The suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

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

Facts

The plaintiffs filed a plaint on 29 March 2019 seeking declarations, eviction, a permanent injunction, special and general damages, mesne profits, interest and costs against the defendants. The last step taken in the proceedings was the filing of the plaintiffs' scheduling memorandum through ECCMIS on 5 March 2023. Thereafter neither party took any step or made any application with a view to proceeding with the suit for a period exceeding two years.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution where no step had been taken by either party 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 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) 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, the court may order the suit dismissed under Order 17 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Duty of Diligence on Plaintiff — Expeditious Prosecution of Claims
A plaintiff in pursuit of a remedy must take all necessary steps at his disposal to achieve an expeditious determination of the claim, and failure to do so may result in dismissal of the suit.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction of Court — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act
Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act preserves the inherent power of the court to make such orders as are necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court, and may be invoked alongside Order 17 Rule 6(1) to dismiss a dormant suit.

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.

William Junju and Another v Rawji Salim Haiderrali and Others [2026] UGHCLD 24 (28 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.