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
Kakeeto Hillary Ddungu v Zalwango Miriam and Others (Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 492 (8 July 2025)
The High Court declined to issue a commission to record the applicant’s evidence, finding no proof that his age or illness made him unable to attend court.
Kabagesera v Kabatooro (HCT-01-CV-CS-LD 6 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 134 (28 February 2025)
The High Court at Fort Portal dismissed a civil suit for want of prosecution after repeated failure to comply with scheduling directions and attend court.
Edondi & 2 Others v Kitura Mixed Farm Limited & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 212 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 134 (5 April 2024)
The High Court at Mbarara dismissed an application to reopen the plaintiffs’ case and add evidence after both sides had closed their cases.
Bwambale v Byabashaija and 10 Others (HCT-01-CV-CS 24 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 107 (20 March 2023)
The High Court at Fort Portal held that the suit had abated for want of prosecution after prolonged inactivity and also dismissed it, vacating an interim injunction.
Kyeyune and Another v Mugoda (Miscellaneous Application No. 178 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 63 (14 March 2023)
The High Court of Uganda dismissed an application to throw out a land suit for want of prosecution, holding that no mandatory scheduling conference had yet taken place.
Nakivumbi and 9 Others v Leather Industries Limited (Labour Dispute Reference No. 8 of 2021) [2022] UGIC 28 (23 March 2022)
The Industrial Court held that late service of witness statements justified moving the labour dispute to the next session, while objections on scheduling and power of attorney failed.
Nsimbe v Sentongo and 11 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 904 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 16 (7 February 2022)
The court held that the law governing dismissal for want of prosecution is Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides that a suit abates after six months of inactivity following the mandatory scheduling conference. In this case, the applicant, as plaintiff, failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit after filing the joint scheduling memorandum, and neither he nor his counsel attended the scheduled hearing. The court found that there is no legal requirement for a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed for want of prosecution to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-attend…
Source excerpt
Dr. Lubega Khalid v Mariam G. Muzei (Civil Appeal No. 170 of 2019) [2021] UGHCLD 34 (8 February 2021)
The appeal was allowed because the trial court proceeded without joining the registered proprietor of the suit land, which was a fundamental procedural error. The plaintiff's primary claim was for proprietary interest, not merely trespass, and such a claim could only be properly adjudicated with the registered proprietor as a defendant. The trial magistrate failed to hold a mandatory scheduling conference, resulting in misidentification of issues and parties. The proceedings, judgment, and orders of the lower court were set aside for contravening section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act a…
Source excerpt
Okello v Acacia Finance Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 448 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 218 (28 October 2016)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a suit for want of prosecution, holding that mediation and scheduling requirements had to be complied with first.
Ziriyo & Ors v Kampala Capital City Authority & Anor (Civil Suit No. 396 of 2012) [2014] UGHCLD 241 (25 November 2014)
The High Court overruled a preliminary objection challenging late filing of an amended plaint and lack of leave, holding the defects caused no prejudice and the suit could proceed.
