Share
Omar and 2 Others v Masambu (Civil Suit No. 894 of 2017) [2021] UGHCLD 101 (7 April 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] UGHCLD 101
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nkonge, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 894 of 2017
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nkonge, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 894 of 2017
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The plaintiffs failed to file a rejoinder to the written statement of defence and took no further action to prosecute the suit for almost a year after the defence was filed. This inaction is interpreted as loss of interest in the matter and amounts to an admission of the defence. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed for want of prosecution under Section 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act Cap 13.
Court disposition
dismissed
Orders
- The suit is dismissed under Section 17(2)(a) Judicature Act Cap 13.
02
Material facts
Parties
Omar Ahmed
Plaintiff Counsel: Stanley OmonyHassan Ahmed
Plaintiff Counsel: Stanley OmonyHussein Ahmed
Plaintiff Counsel: Stanley OmonyPatrick Masambu
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to plaintiffs' inaction.
- 02
Whether failure to file a rejoinder to the written statement of defence amounts to admission of the defence.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiffs, through their counsel, had previously requested a hearing date but subsequently took no further steps, including failing to file a rejoinder to the written statement of defence after it was allowed to be filed out of time.
- Respondent
- The defendant did not actively participate, as the matter initially proceeded ex parte due to his failure to file a defence, but was later allowed to file the written statement of defence by consent. No rejoinder was filed by the plaintiffs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(2)(a) Judicature Act Cap 13
A suit may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the plaintiff fails to take necessary steps to advance the case.
- 02
Ugandan civil procedure practice
Failure to file a rejoinder to the written statement of defence is presumed to be an admission of the statements in the defence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The plaintiffs failed to file a rejoinder to the written statement of defence and took no further action to prosecute the suit for almost a year after the defence was filed. This inaction is interpreted as loss of interest in the matter and amounts to an admission of the defence. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed for want of prosecution under Section 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act Cap 13.
Court disposition
dismissed
- The suit is dismissed under Section 17(2)(a) Judicature Act Cap 13.
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
LAND DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. 895 OF 2017
1. OMAR AHMED
2. HASSAN AHMED
3. HUSSEIN AHMED ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
VERSUS
PATRICK MASAMBU::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Date: 7/4/2021
Time: 10.00 a.m.
BEFORE: LADY JUSTICE ALEXANDRA NKONGE RUGADYA:
RULING:
This matter was fixed and cause listed for hearing today, $7/4/2021$ at 9.30 a.m. None of the parties however is in court. On $19/9/2021$ counsel Stanley Omony for the plaintiffs, had written to this court asking for a date of hearing.
The matter had proceeded exparte against the defendant, following his failure to file WSD. A locus visit was fixed after the formal proof was conducted on $29/8/2019$ . On $12/12/2019$ a consent was entered between the parties whereupon the plaintiffs conceded to a late filing of the WSD.
The exparte proceedings were subsequently set aside, as per order of this court dated $17/12/2019$ . The ruling was delivered on $2/7/2020$ . The WSD was filed on $7/7/2020$ . Since then, no other action has taken place. The plaintiff did not file any rejoinder to the WSD. The presumption is that they admitted to the statements in the defence.
In light of the fact that there was no rejoinder and indeed no further follow up on this matter almost one year later, I take it therefore that the plaintiffs have since lost interest in pursuing the matter any further.
I accordingly dismiss it under Section 17(2) (a) Judicature Act Cap 13.
nge Rugadya Alexand JUDGE
$7/4/2021$
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.