Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Sekyewa Khamis and Another v Nalongo (Mlsc. APPLICATION NO 3109 OF 2023) [2025] UGHC 248 (30 April 2025)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to take any step to prosecute the matter for almost 18 months after the court indicated its docket was full. The court exercised its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the application for want of prosecution, emphasizing the need for parties to be diligent in pursuing their cases.

Court disposition

application dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

02

Material facts

Parties

Sekyewa Rashid Khamis

Applicant

Nabasirye Ruth Mayambala

Applicant

Nabumba Florence Nalong

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Party arguments

Applicant
No argument was presented by the applicants as no step was taken to seek another date for hearing for almost 18 months.
Respondent
No argument was presented by the respondent as the matter was not actively prosecuted.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules (Uganda)

    Applications may be dismissed for want of prosecution where parties fail to take necessary steps to advance the case.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to take any step to prosecute the matter for almost 18 months after the court indicated its docket was full. The court exercised its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the application for want of prosecution, emphasizing the need for parties to be diligent in pursuing their cases.

Court disposition

application dismissed for want of prosecution

  • The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2025] UGHC 248

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(LAND DlVlSloN)

Mlsc. APPLICATION NO 3109 0F 2023

(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 587 OF 2023)

1. SEKYEWA RASHID KHAMIS

2. NABASIRYE RUTH MAYAMBALA-------------------------'---APPLICANTS

-vs-

NABUMBA FLORENCE NALONG -------------------------RESPONDENT

Before: Hon. Lady Justice Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya

15

RULING

Thjs file was placed before me on the 18th October 2023 and I indicated that my docket was full for the next 6 months. No step has been taken by the applicant to seek another date for almost 18 months.

2A

<sup>I</sup>hereby dismiss this application for want of prosecution

4^

<sup>25</sup> Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya

Judge

301h April 2025

Delivered by email to Counsel for the Applicant and the Respondent

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 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules (Uganda)

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.