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
Semitala Charles v Kagugube John (Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 569 (18 June 2025)
The High Court at Mpigi dismissed an application to set aside dismissal and reinstate an appeal, finding the applicant had delayed prosecution without sufficient cause.
Ssebina David and Others v Kiguba James Sewagaba and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1725 of 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 59 (5 May 2025)
The High Court declined to reinstate an appeal dismissed for non-appearance, finding the applicants had not shown sufficient cause under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Sadala and Another v Prime Annex Finance Ltd (MISC. APPL. NO. 14 OF 2023) [2025] UGHC 184 (7 February 2025)
The High Court reinstated an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, finding the dismissal was premature and attributable to court error rather than the applicants.
Kyotamanyire Langton Madvan v Magambo Fred (MISC. APPLICATION No. 0108 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 239 (31 January 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in prosecuting his appeal. The medical evidence showed the applicant was mostly an outpatient and could have instructed his lawyers, who themselves failed to take necessary steps to prosecute the appeal. The absence of both the applicant and his counsel on the hearing date, despite public notice, indicated abandonment of the appeal. The court held that neither the applicant's sickness nor the conduct of his lawyers justified reinstatement, and that justice required the respondent to enjoy the fruits of his…
Source excerpt
Registered Trustees of Hoima Diocese v Odeba and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 100 (17 January 2025)
The High Court at Hoima dismissed an application to reinstate a dismissed appeal, finding the applicant had shown inordinate delay and no sufficient cause.
Ojok & Another v Anyinge & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 68 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 11 (16 January 2025)
The application to set aside the dismissal of Land Appeal No. 003 of 2013 and reinstate it for hearing on merit was denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient diligence in prosecuting the appeal. The court found that the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, not for non-appearance, and that the applicant and his counsel were dilatory throughout the process, including significant delays in following up the matter and lodging the present application. The court held that the invocation of its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act is not automatic…
Source excerpt
Lubega v Twaha (Miscellaneous Application 1055 of 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 8 (13 January 2025)
The High Court refused to reinstate a dismissed land-related appeal, finding no sufficient cause for the long delay and lack of diligence in prosecution.
Kanto v Okemoto & Another (Miscellaneous Application 23 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1117 (27 December 2024)
The court found that the applicant's failure to attend the hearing was due to the negligence of his counsel, who was aware of the hearing date but failed to inform the applicant or attend court. The court held that such negligence constitutes sufficient cause under Ugandan law and established case authorities. The applicant had demonstrated diligence in filing the appeal and requesting certified copies of the judgment and proceedings. The court was satisfied that the applicant was not guilty of dilatory conduct and that the interests of justice required the dismissal order to be set aside and…
Source excerpt
Kuloba v Wamulukhu (Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1007 (28 October 2024)
The High Court at Mbale dismissed an application to set aside dismissal of an appeal and reinstate it, finding no sufficient cause and no proof of diligent follow-up.
Alesi v Alemi (Miscellaneous Application 83 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 811 (29 August 2024)
The Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for her non-appearance and lack of prosecution of the appeal. The court found that the Applicant and her counsel did not act diligently, having only sent sporadic letters over three years without taking substantive steps to advance the appeal, such as fixing a hearing date or directly addressing the court regarding the missing record of proceedings. The court also determined that the letters and Memorandum of Appeal relied upon by the Applicant were not properly on record at the time of dismissal and may have been introduced after the fact.…
Source excerpt
