Wakilii

Yesero Mugenyi and S M Holdings Ltd v Abdu Nassar [2026] UGHCLD 131

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion in a pending civil suit seeking leave to adduce additional evidence and call a further witness
Decision
Application to adduce further evidence dismissed; leave refused

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 declined to allow the applicants to adduce a supplementary witness statement and call an additional witness in a suit filed in 2005. The applicants had taken no serious steps to prosecute the application, which had been pending since 2022, and the matter formed part of the court's case backlog, having been in the system for more than three years. Invoking section 17(2) of the Judicature Act, the court held there was no reason to extend the period further and dismissed the application, with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application to adduce further evidence dismissed; leave refused

Facts

The applicants filed a notice of motion on 22 August 2022 in Civil Suit No. 87 of 2005, seeking orders that they be permitted to adduce further evidence by relying on a supplementary witness statement filed by the first applicant, to call one additional witness, and for costs of the application. On perusal of the record, the court found that the applicants had taken no serious steps to prosecute the application. The court further observed that the matter had been in the court system for more than three years and constituted case backlog.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be allowed to adduce additional evidence by way of a supplementary witness statement and to call a further witness.
  2. Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution given the age of the matter and case backlog.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed under section 17(2) of the Judicature Act.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Want of Prosecution — Dismissal of Interlocutory Applications for Inaction and Case Backlog
Where an applicant takes no serious steps to prosecute an interlocutory application and the matter has remained in the court system for an extended period so as to constitute case backlog, the court may dismiss the application under section 17(2) of the Judicature Act rather than extend the time for its disposal.

Legislation cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Yesero Mugenyi and S M Holdings Ltd v Abdu Nassar [2026] UGHCLD 131 (30 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.