Share
Kyepa Yazid and Another v Nakitende and Another (Miscellaneous Application 163 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 89 (5 April 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] UGHCLD 89
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Asiimwe, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 163 of 2024
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Asiimwe, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 163 of 2024
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that although there was an indication of intention to withdraw the application, no formal withdrawal was made on the court record. The applicant's counsel, who had previously sought an urgent hearing, failed to appear and did not prosecute the application. In the absence of a formal withdrawal and due to the failure to prosecute, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the dismissed application.
Court disposition
application dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The applicant shall pay the costs of the dismissed application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kyepa Y Azid Mukalu
ApplicantRobert Mugerwa
ApplicantFrista Nakitende (As administrator of the estate of the late Eria Kirumira Nakalanso)
RespondentVicent Kibirige
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Withdrawal/dismissal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 02
Whether there was a valid withdrawal of the application before the court.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant's counsel requested an urgent hearing due to the applicant's health but failed to appear on the scheduled date. There was an indication of intention to withdraw the application via a letter, but no formal withdrawal was made on the court record.
- Respondent
- The respondents did not present arguments as the matter was not prosecuted by the applicants.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules
An application pending before the court must be prosecuted by the parties or their advocates; failure to do so may result in dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 02
Order 25 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
A withdrawal of an application must be formally made on the court record to be effective.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that although there was an indication of intention to withdraw the application, no formal withdrawal was made on the court record. The applicant's counsel, who had previously sought an urgent hearing, failed to appear and did not prosecute the application. In the absence of a formal withdrawal and due to the failure to prosecute, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the dismissed application.
Obiter and limits
- Advocates should appear in court to formally seek withdrawal of matters rather than relying on informal communication.
Court disposition
application dismissed for want of prosecution
- The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The applicant shall pay the costs of the dismissed application.
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 ILAND DIVISIONI MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 163 OF 2024 (ARTSTNG CrVrL SUrr NO.34 OF 2006)
I. KYEPA Y AZID MUKALU : : : : :: :: : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : APPLICANTS 2. ROBERT MUGERWA
VERSUS
l. FRISTA NAKITENDE (As administrator of the estate of the late Eria Kirumira Nakalanso) 2. VICENT KIBIRIGE: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : :RESPONDENTS
BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE TADEO ASIIMWE RULING
This Application was fixed for today's hearing at the request of Counsel for the Applicant in his letter dated 7th February, 2024. It is surprising that the same Lawyer who obtained an urgent hearing date on account of his sickly client has failed to attend Court today.
I have also checked on ECCMIS and found a letter dated27thMarch,,2024 indicating an instruction of intention to withdraw the Application. However, the said instruction has not been put on Court record and as such, there is no such prayer to withdraw the case before me.
1 I
Under normal circumstances, the Advocate should have appeared in Court to formerly seek the intended withdraw of the matter.
Accordingly, since the Application is still pending in Court and the parties have failed to prosecute it, the same stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
Applicant shall pay costs of the dismissed Application.
I so ord \ TA I
JUDGE
5t04t2024
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.