Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Birungi and 3 Others v Namubiru and Another (Family Misc Application 291 of 2023) [2023] UGHCFD 138 (14 July 2023)
The High Court Family Division dismissed an application to reopen and rehear a suit de novo, holding that the applicants had sufficient opportunity to participate and that further delay was unjustified.
ABC Impex Africa (U) Ltd v Haruna Enterprises (Civil Suit No. 899 of 2017) [2021] UGCommC 110 (10 February 2021)
The High Court held that the suit should proceed under Order 9 rule 20, not Order 17 rule 4, and dismissed the plaintiff's application while keeping the ex parte order in place.
Uganda Baati v Mubangizi Julius (Civil Application 7 of 2020) [2020] UGSC 25 (10 September 2020)
The Supreme Court found that the respondent filed the notice of appeal 9 days out of time, contrary to Rule 72 of the Supreme Court Rules, and did not seek an extension. Furthermore, the respondent failed to take any further steps to prosecute the appeal, such as filing a memorandum or record of appeal as required by Rule 79. The respondent's counsel had lost contact with him, and there was no evidence of any intention to pursue the appeal. The Court emphasized that litigation should not be treated as an indefinite pastime and that parties must diligently prosecute their cases. The cumulative…
Source excerpt
Rwihandagaza v Sengendo & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 145 of 2015) [2015] UGHCFD 37 (29 October 2015)
The application for dismissal for want of prosecution was denied because the record showed that the respondents participated in mediation, which was not formally concluded by the Registrar. The failure to proceed to trial was not solely attributable to the respondents, as the mediation process was interrupted and the file was reallocated to a Judge without a mediation report. The court found that there was insufficient basis to condemn the respondents for lack of prosecution under Order 17 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondents had abando…
Source excerpt
Nkuba v Commissioner Land Registration (Ma. 85 of 2011) [2013] UGHCLD 55 (6 June 2013)
The High Court dismissed an ex parte application seeking reinstatement on a land title, finding no proof that the applicant’s title had actually been cancelled.
Nsereko & Anor v Musoke Mbidde & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 217 of 2013) [2013] UGHCLD 52 (30 May 2013)
The High Court dismissed an application to join purchasers of disputed land as defendants after the main suit had closed and a judgment date had been set.
Kalyesubula Fenekansi v Luwere District Land Board & 2 Ors (Misc. Application No. 367 of 2011) [2011] UGHC 178 (15 December 2011)
The applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for his and his lawyer's non-appearance when the suit was called for hearing, as they were not served with hearing notices and were under the impression that the file could not be located. The respondents did not rebut the applicant's affidavit evidence, which stands unchallenged and is therefore presumed admitted. The court found that the applicant had not lost interest in the case and that the failure to appear was not due to his fault but due to lack of notice and administrative issues. Applying Order 9 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules and re…
Source excerpt
Rwakaikara Kiiza v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 1322 of 2000) [2001] UGHC 4 (27 November 2001)
The High Court of Uganda rejected a claim for special damages for unpaid salary arrears but awarded general damages, interest, and costs in an ex parte civil suit.
El-Shekeley v Abdulla (C.C. 13/1935 (Mombasa).) [1935] EACA 150 (1 January 1935)
The court held that although the plaintiff may set down a suit for hearing ex parte immediately upon the defendant's default in entering appearance, the defendant may enter appearance at any time before judgment is obtained. If the defendant actually appears in court in person or by advocate on the day fixed for ex parte hearing, the plaintiff has no right to proceed ex parte. The local rules (Order 9 r. 17) do not permit ex parte proceedings when both parties are present. The court has discretion to extend time for entering appearance and filing a defence, especially where the defendant's ap…
Source excerpt
Fisher Simmons and Rodway East Africa Ltd v Visram (CC. 41/1932.) [1932] EACA 42 (1 January 1932)
The court held that a defendant may enter appearance at any time before judgment and allowed the defendant to defend despite a late appearance.
