Share
Nalubega Shadia v Hamiduh Seremba and Others (Civil Suit No. 1060 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 268 (12 May 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] UGHC 268
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Nakiganda Ida, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 1060 of 2023
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Nakiganda Ida, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 1060 of 2023
- 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 failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit after filing the plaint, including the mandatory issuance of summons to the defendants. This failure constituted an inordinate and inexcusable delay, amounting to an abuse of court process. Applying the principles from the Judicature Act and the Civil Procedure Rules, as well as the test from Allen v. Sir Alfred Mc Alpine & Sons Ltd, the court determined that the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The absence of any action by the plaintiff since filing the suit justified the dismissal under Section 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act.
Court disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed under Section 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act, Cap 13 for want of prosecution.
- No steps were taken by the plaintiff to prosecute or proceed with the suit, including issuance of summons to file a defence.
- There has been an unexplained, inexcusable and inordinate delay by the plaintiff to prosecute the suit, which is an abuse of court process.
02
Material facts
Parties
Nalubega Shadia
PlaintiffHamiduh Seremba
DefendantKagai Irene
DefendantNambuya Suzan
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiff took necessary steps to prosecute the suit including issuance of summons to the defendants.
- 02
Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit was inordinate and inexcusable.
- 03
Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff alleged that the 1st defendant sold family property without her consent and sought a declaration that the sale was null and void. However, after filing the plaint, the plaintiff took no further steps to prosecute the suit, including failing to issue summons to the defendants.
- Respondent
- The defendants did not file a defence as no summons were issued. The court considered the matter on its own motion due to the plaintiff's inaction and delay.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act, Cap 13
A suit may be dismissed for want of prosecution where there is inordinate and inexcusable delay by the plaintiff to take necessary steps.
- 02
Order 5, Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1
Issuance of summons to file a defence is a mandatory procedural step after filing a plaint.
- 03
Allen Vs. Sir Alfred Mc Alpine & Sons Ltd (1968) All ER 543
The three-part test for dismissal for want of prosecution: inordinate delay, inexcusable delay, and prejudice to the defendant.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit after filing the plaint, including the mandatory issuance of summons to the defendants. This failure constituted an inordinate and inexcusable delay, amounting to an abuse of court process. Applying the principles from the Judicature Act and the Civil Procedure Rules, as well as the test from Allen v. Sir Alfred Mc Alpine & Sons Ltd, the court determined that the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The absence of any action by the plaintiff since filing the suit justified the dismissal under Section 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act.
Obiter and limits
- Litigants must be diligent in prosecuting their cases to avoid unnecessary delays and abuse of court process.
- The issuance of summons is not a mere formality but a critical procedural step in civil litigation.
Court disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- The suit is dismissed under Section 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act, Cap 13 for want of prosecution.
- No steps were taken by the plaintiff to prosecute or proceed with the suit, including issuance of summons to file a defence.
- There has been an unexplained, inexcusable and inordinate delay by the plaintiff to prosecute the suit, which is an abuse of court process.
Source and reliance status
High Court of 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.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA [LAND DIVISION] CIVIL SUIT NO. 1060 OF 2023
NALUBEGA SHADIA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
- 1. HAMIDUH SEREMBA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANTS - 2. KAGAI IRENE - 3. NAMBUYA SUZAN
BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE NAKIGANDA IDA
RULING
Introduction;
- 1. The Plaintiff alleged that on 21st December 2018, the 1st Defendant sold the property in issue located in Busiro Block 379, Plot 1423 situate at Katale, Nalumunye, Wakiso District, to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants without her consent. The Plaintiff sought a declaration that the land in question was family property and that the sale agreement executed by the 1st Defendant in respect of the aforementioned property and without the Plaintiff's consent was null and void. - 2. The plaint in this suit was filed on ECCMIS on 15th September 2023. No further action has been taken by the Plaintiff concerning the suit since the aforementioned filing on ECCMIS.
- 3. The Plaintiff did not issue summons to file a defence to the defendants in accordance with Order 5, Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules S. I 71-1. - 4. In *Allen Vs. Sir Alfred Mc Alpine & Sons Ltd (1968), All ER 543*, Lord Denning set out a three-part test for dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution as indicated below: - (i) That there has been an inordinate delay to prosecute a suit; - (ii) That this inordinate delay is inexcusable; - (iii) The defendant is likely to be seriously prejudiced by the delay.
Order;
The Suit is hereby dismissed under Section 17 (2) (a) of the Judicature Act, Cap 13 on the following grounds:
- 1. No steps were taken by the Plaintiff to prosecute or proceed with the suit including through the issuance of summons to file a defence to the Defendants in accordance with the Order 5, Rule 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1. - 2. There has been an unexplained, inexcusable and inordinate delay by the Plaintiff to prosecute the suit which is an abuse of court process.
I SO ORDER.
NAKIGANDA IDA JUDGE 12th May, 2025
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.