Share
Luzinda and 2 Others v Kizito (Civil Suit No. 388 of 2016) [2023] UGHCLD 71 (20 March 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] UGHCLD 71
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nkonge, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 388 of 2016
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nkonge, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 388 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 both the main suit and the counterclaim had not been prosecuted for an extended period. The plaintiffs failed to take further action after filing the suit, leading to its earlier dismissal. The defendant/counterclaimant also failed to comply with court directions to conduct a survey and did not take any further steps to prosecute the counterclaim for over two years. The court concluded that the lack of action demonstrated a loss of interest in the matter by both parties, justifying dismissal of the counterclaim for want of prosecution.
Court disposition
counterclaim dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The counterclaim is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No orders as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Luzinda Henry & 2 Others
PlaintiffKizito Kezekia
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Order of Dismissal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the suit and counterclaim should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- No arguments were presented as neither party nor their counsel appeared in court.
- Respondent
- No arguments were presented as neither party nor their counsel appeared in court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules (Uganda)
A suit or counterclaim may be dismissed for want of prosecution if parties fail to take necessary steps to advance the case.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that both the main suit and the counterclaim had not been prosecuted for an extended period. The plaintiffs failed to take further action after filing the suit, leading to its earlier dismissal. The defendant/counterclaimant also failed to comply with court directions to conduct a survey and did not take any further steps to prosecute the counterclaim for over two years. The court concluded that the lack of action demonstrated a loss of interest in the matter by both parties, justifying dismissal of the counterclaim for want of prosecution.
Obiter and limits
- No orders as to costs were made.
Court disposition
counterclaim dismissed for want of prosecution
- The counterclaim is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No orders as to costs.
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
THEREPUBLIC OFUGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
crvrl surT No. 388 0F 2016
LUZINDA HENRY & 2 OTHERS : :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
I{IZIT O KEZEKIA : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : DEFENDANT.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
10 This suit is coming up before this court on 17th March, 2023, in the absence of both parties and their respective counsel. The suit was filed on 29th June, 2016.
On 20th January 2020, upon the prayers of counsel for the defendant/counterclaimant, the suit was dismissed by this court based on the plaintiffs failure to take further action towards its prosecution. The matter was scheduled to proceed with the hearing of the counterclaim.
The last time this matter was in court was on 23'd October 2O2O. The defendant/counterclaim was directed by this court on that day to carry out a survey on the suit land and do so within 3O days, which to date he has failed to do.
The matter was cause listed for further hearing on 1lth January, 202 1 which date was hxed in court in the presence of counsel and
his client. Subsequently another date of 17<sup>th</sup> March, 2023, was appointed at 10.00 am, for the further hearing.
For more than 2 years now, no further action has been taken to follow up the counterclaim. I therefore dismiss the counter claim as it is now also clear that the defendant/counterclaimant has lost interest.
$\mathsf{S}$
No orders as to costs.
Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya
10 Judge
20<sup>th</sup> March, 2023
Defined by each<br>Cuboez<br> $24/3/2023$
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.