Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Nyamwesi v Kambale (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2018) [2023] UGHCCD 50 (27 February 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal for more than four years and did not attend court when the matter was fixed for mention. The respondent's counsel applied for dismissal for want of prosecution. The court applied Order 43 Rule 31 and Order 43 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empower the court to dismiss an appeal where there has been undue delay and the appellant fails to appear. The court concluded that the prolonged inactivity and absence of the appellant justified dismissal of the appeal with costs to the respondent.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 0016 of 2018 is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 43 Rule 31 and Order 43 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondent.

02

Material facts

Parties

Nyamwesi Kule

Appellant

Kambale Kasungu Desire

Respondent Counsel: Bwiruka Richard

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
No argument was presented by the appellant, who was unrepresented and absent from court.
Respondent
Counsel for the respondent requested dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution, citing the appellant's failure to take any steps to progress the matter for over four years.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 43 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules

    An appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution if there has been undue delay and the parties have been notified.

  2. 02

    Order 43 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules

    If the appellant does not appear on the day fixed for hearing, the court may dismiss the appeal for default.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal for more than four years and did not attend court when the matter was fixed for mention. The respondent's counsel applied for dismissal for want of prosecution. The court applied Order 43 Rule 31 and Order 43 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empower the court to dismiss an appeal where there has been undue delay and the appellant fails to appear. The court concluded that the prolonged inactivity and absence of the appellant justified dismissal of the appeal with costs to the respondent.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

  • Civil Appeal No. 0016 of 2018 is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 43 Rule 31 and Order 43 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondent.

Source and reliance status

HC: Civil 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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2023] UGHCCD 50

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 0016 OF 2018

(ARISING FROM FPT – 00 – CV – MC – 138 OF 2018)

5 NYAMWESI KULE ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT

VERSUS

KAMBALE KASUNGU DESIRE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT BEFORE HON. JUSTICE VINCENT WAGONA

RULING

10 This was an appeal against the decision of His Worship Kagwa John Francis, the Chief Magistrate at Fort Portal delivered on 6 th September 2018. The Memorandum of Appeal was filed on 5 th October 2018 and endorsed by court on 4 th October 2018.

Since then, the appellant has not made any effort to have the appeal progressed. He 15 was unrepresented and did not attend court when the case was fixed with a view of progressing the matter. It is now more four years since the last action was done by

the appellant on this matter.

On the 8 th day of March 2023 when the case was fixed by court on its on motion for mention, Counsel Bwiruka Richard for the Respondent asked court to have the 20 case dismissed for want of prosecution.

DECISION:

![](_page_0_Picture_13.jpeg)

Order 43 Rule 31 provides for dismissal for want of prosecution and states that:

(1) "Where there has been undue delay in the hearing of an appeal, the registrar may obtain the directions of a judge for the listing of the appeal at the next ensuing sessions of the High Court."

- 5 (2) "Notice of the listing shall be served in such manner as the judge may think fit upon the appellant and respondent or their advocates, and upon the hearing thereof the court may order the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution or may make such other order as may seem just." - 10 Under Order 43 rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a judge who is faced with an appeal that has remained unprosecuted for a long time, may either dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or make any other order as he or she thinks just provided that the parties have been notified in accordance with Order 43 Rule 31 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. - 15

Order 43 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides for dismissal of appeal for appellant's default and states that;

(1) "Where on the day fixed, or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the 20 appeal is called on for hearing, the court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed."

In the present appeal, since 4 th October 2018, no specific step has been taken by the parties to have the appeal heard. It is more than four years since the last action was 25 done. The appellant was unrepresented and did not attend court when the case was fixed with a view of progressing the matter. In the premises, Civil Appeal No. 0016 of 2018 is hereby dismissed under the above provisions with costs awarded to the Respondent.

It is so ordered.

Vincent Wagona High Court Judge FORT-PORTAL 27.02.2023

![](_page_2_Picture_5.jpeg)

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Order 43 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 43 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.