Share
Kibaale District Local Goverment v Kakumiro Drivers Agency (Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2022) [2022] UGHCLD 113 (7 April 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGHCLD 113
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Byaruhanga Rugyema, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2022
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Byaruhanga Rugyema, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2022
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant and its advocate failed to appear in court and showed no interest in prosecuting the application. The conduct of the applicant's counsel, who did not make any submissions or comments regarding the application, indicated a loss of interest. Therefore, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Court disposition
application dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The application is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Rules (as amended).
02
Material facts
Parties
Kibaale District Local Government
Applicant Counsel: Mr. Kamugisha VincentKakumiro Drivers' Agency
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to nonappearance and lack of interest by the applicant.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant did not appear in court nor did its advocate show any interest in prosecuting the application. No submissions were made regarding the merits of the application.
- Respondent
- No formal argument was presented by the respondent in this application as neither party appeared for the hearing.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 17 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Rules (as amended)
An application may be dismissed for want of prosecution if the applicant fails to appear or show interest in prosecuting the matter.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant and its advocate failed to appear in court and showed no interest in prosecuting the application. The conduct of the applicant's counsel, who did not make any submissions or comments regarding the application, indicated a loss of interest. Therefore, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Court disposition
application dismissed for want of prosecution
- The application is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Rules (as amended).
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 MASINDI MISC. APPLICATION NO. 35B OF 2017
(Arising from Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2016)
KIBAALE DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT :::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT
VERSUS
KAKUMIRO DRIVERS' AGENCY ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
RULING
*Before: Hon. Justice Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema*
- [1] This application was filed way back on 25/5/2017 and it was fixed for hearing on the 13/3/18 and to 29/11/19 when the application was adjourned for hearing. Since then, neither party has appeared in court with the view to proceed with the Application. - [2] Today, counsel for the Applicant Mr. Kamugisha Vincent of M/s Kamugisha & Co. Advocates, Kampala appeared in court in response to H. C. M. A No. 93 of 2021(Arising from Civil appeal No.43/16 and M. A No.35 A/17) wherein he had been served for orders that Civil Appeal No.43/2016 be dismissed for want of prosecution. - [3] In the application H. C. M. A. No.93/21, neither the applicant nor its Advocate surfaced for the hearing yet the application was fixed at their instance. It was accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution with costs. Mr. Kamugisha for the Respondent in that application who is counsel for the Applicant in this instant application, neither alluded to this application nor showed interest in it. He only alluded to it in his submissions in rejoinder in the appeal but still showed disinterest.
[4] In the premises, the logical conclusion from his conduct is that he has lost interest in this application for he only vanished from court without any comment on the same. As a result, this court is entitled to determine this application by way of dismissing it and it is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution under O.17 r.5 CPR ( as amended). M. A No. 35B/2017 arising from this application is overtaken by events.
Dated at Masindi this 7th day of April, 2022.
Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema JUDGE.
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.