Share
Kasozi v Mukasa and Another (Civil Suit No. 511 of 2016) [2022] UGHCLD 123 (29 June 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGHCLD 123
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nkonge, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 511 of 2016
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nkonge, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 511 of 2016
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to proceed with the hearing despite having ample opportunity and after the suit had already been dismissed and reinstated by consent. The plaintiff's counsel's reasons for adjournment were not satisfactory, and no adequate explanation was provided for the plaintiff's absence. The repeated delays undermined the principle of expeditious justice. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion under Order 77 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the defendants.
Court disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed under Order 77 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Costs are awarded to the defendants.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kasozi William
Plaintiff Counsel: Akakimpa GodfreyEdward Mukasa
Defendant Counsel: David KasadhaKoire Dennis
Defendant Counsel: Francis Kasoro03
Procedural history
Posture
Land Suit / Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution after repeated delays by the plaintiff.
- 02
Whether the plaintiff's request for further adjournment was justified under the circumstances.
- 03
Whether the reinstatement of the suit by consent affects the court's discretion to dismiss for non-prosecution.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the plaintiff requested an adjournment on the grounds of ill health and stated that all required documents, including witness statements and trial bundle, had been filed. He argued that the plaintiff had complied with court directives and sought another hearing date.
- Respondent
- Counsel for the defendants objected to the adjournment, arguing that the matter had been pending since 2016, had already been dismissed once for want of prosecution, and was only reinstated by consent. They asserted that no prior notification of inability to proceed was given and that the plaintiff's absence was unexplained, warranting dismissal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 77 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules
A suit may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the plaintiff fails to proceed with the hearing without sufficient cause.
- 02
General principle of civil procedure
Justice delayed is justice denied; courts must balance the interests of expeditious disposal against requests for adjournment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to proceed with the hearing despite having ample opportunity and after the suit had already been dismissed and reinstated by consent. The plaintiff's counsel's reasons for adjournment were not satisfactory, and no adequate explanation was provided for the plaintiff's absence. The repeated delays undermined the principle of expeditious justice. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion under Order 77 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the defendants.
Obiter and limits
- Justice delayed is justice denied.
- The court notes that all trial documents were filed and parties were aware of the hearing date, yet the plaintiff failed to proceed.
Court disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- The suit is dismissed under Order 77 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Costs are awarded to the defendants.
Source and reliance status
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISION)
clvrl- suIT No.s11 0F 2016
5 KASOZI WILLIAM ......'PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
| | 1. EDWARD MUKASA | |----|--------------------------------| | 10 | 2, KOIRE DENNrS,<br>DEFENDANTS |
Before: l,ad.u Justice Alexqnd ra. Nkonae
JUDGMENT
At today,s hearing, counscl rcprcsenting the dcfcndants in this Suit sought to have this suit dismissed with costs for thc plaintiffs failurc to procced with thc hcaring of this suit. 15
Brrck qround:
By way of brief background the plaintiff, Mr. William Kasozi filcd this suil against thc defendants sceking a declaration (among othcrs) that hc is a lawful owncr of 40 decimals of land compriscd in Busiro, Block 397, Plot 85, land at Bwega Centrql Zone.
'l'hs 1{ defendant, Mr. ildward Mukasa howcvcr dcnied the claims, contending that what he sold to him our of that land was only I <sup>50</sup>ft bg sofi. T:nat he latcr sold a6fi by 65fi ba 41ft ba 69 f1|o Mr. Koire Dennis, the 2"d defendant who took immediatc posscssion of thc land' 20
Thc suit was dismisscd on 2 I "r Augu st, 2021 by this court for want of prosccution. An applical ion was filcd by thc firm rcprcscnting thc plaintiff vidc MA No. 7336 of 2019 for rcinstatcment- As
per lettcr dalcd l3th Scptembcr, 2019 by M/s the Capltdl Laut Partners & Adaocates (rcprcsenting thc 1"r dcfcndant at thc timc) addrcsscd to thc Managing pz[tncr M/s obed Mwebesa Lnd Associoted Adaoc@tes, rcprcscnting thc plaintitf a rcmindcr was madc thal this suit had bccn dismissed for want of prosccution but latcr lcinstatcd by consent of thc partics. 2.5
1 \-1"'t
M/s the Colpitolt Ldw Pqrtners & Advocates in that letter requcstcd M/s Obed Mwebesa and Associdted Aduocqtes to sharc thc draft schcriuling mcmo for thcir input as well and to scrve them with the witness statemqnts wjthin onc wcck from datc of receipt of letter, to enable the fixing of thc mattcr and cxpcditious disposal of thc case in intcrcst ofjustice'
5 M/s Obed Muebesa & Assoclated adaocates acknowlcdged rcceipt of that lctter on 13rh Septcmber, 2019. They filcd witness statcmcnts on 23"1 Scptcmber, 2O19 as well as draft scheduling memo and on 251h March, 2021 filcd the plaintiffls trial bundlc. The matler was set for today and set for hearing and all parties wcrc awarc of this datc'
However, counscl Akakimpa Godfrey who appca[cd for thc plaintiff was not lcady to proceed on account of the fact that hc was not fccling wcll. I Ic inlormcd court thcy had complicd wilh its dircctives to fiie the requircd documcnts, that is, the witncss statements; .lsM and Trial Bundie. 10
This court notes that thc su.it was filcd in 20 16 initially by thc firm of M/s Nluagaba & Muebeso. Adoocates. Mr. obcd Mwebcsa who had personal conduct of the case apparently changed from that firm and later formcd his own firm, but continucd wilh thc casc. Thc samc counsel has
sincc filed his own witncss s{atcmcnt whilc stilt rcprcscnting thc plaintiff 15
It is not known whethcr or not Katcregga, Mwcbcsa and Akakimpa all lepresenting the plaintiff werc from the same firm, or diffcrcnt firms. Thcrc is no noticc filcd for a changc of instructions. Mwebesa,s absencc as the counscl for thc plaintiff was not cxplained to help court undelstand how he was going to continue represcnting his clicnt whcn hc is also a witness at the same
time. 20
> Akakimpa requested that thc mattcr be givcn other dates for hearing. David Kasadha for the 1"t defendant and his clicnt. thc 1"t dcfcndant and Irrancis Kasoro reprcsenting the 2"d defendant were edl present in court who wcre rcady to procccd howcvcr objected, rightly so, to thc adjournment.
Thc objections wcre prcmiscd on thc ground that this mattcr had becn in court sincc 2016. They cxpected that out of courtcsy, prior notification ought to havc becn givcn by the plaintiff or his counsel. 25
Ifurthermore that no attempt had been madc to cxplain why the plaintiff himself was absent. Court was a-lso reminded that this mattcr had bccn dismisscd in 2019 for want of prosecution,
but later reinstated by consent of parties. 30
\\ 2
As noted by court, all the trial documcnts wcrc filcd in court ready for thc hcaring. The only available date if court were to allow thc adjournmcnt sought howevcr was in February, 2023, :rnd this for a matter that had becn fixed rn 2016.
5 Mr. Akakimpa,s excuses with all duc respcct could not satisfy court as to why the plaintiff who has interest in ensuring that his case is hcard expcditiously and his rights determined, wanted further extension of the trial.
Where a suit is dismisscd after two ycars for want of prosccution; rcinstated by consent of all parties; re-fixcd for hearing but fails to take off again on account of thc plaintiff"s own inability to procced, it becomes difficult to lustify any furthcr adjournmcnt.
Justice delayed is justice dcnied. li'or those rcasons I thcrcforc dccline to granl. any further adjournmcnts in rclalion to this case. 10
I accordingly dismiss thc suit undcr Order 77 rule 5 oJ the cPR
Costs awarded to the dcfcndants.
15 Alexand.ra Nkonge o.dga
29th June, 2022
JUDGE fulwE f, u a^,L "lnl 2bzL U
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.