[2025] UGHCLD 120

[2025] UGHCLD 120

The court found that neither party attended the hearing on the scheduled date, and no reason was provided for their absence. In accordance with Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution due to nonattendance. The dismissal is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] UGHCLD 120
Parties
Applicant: Muchezero Co-operative Saving and Credit Society Ltd; Defendant: Birikadde Abubaker (Proposed administrator Pendete lite for the estate of the late Namutebi Mariam Bitalo); Defendant: Nabiserre Jalia (Proposed Administrator Pendete lite for the estate of the late Haruna Bitalo)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 1311 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application Dismissal for Nonattendance
Outcome
application dismissed for nonattendance
Judges
Nassuna Matovu, J
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Nonattendance, Order 9 Rule 17, Application Procedure, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Nonattendance Order 9 Rule 17 Application Procedure Land Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muchezero Co-operative Saving and Credit Society Ltd

Applicant

Birikadde Abubaker (Proposed administrator Pendete lite for the estate of the late Namutebi Mariam Bitalo)

Defendant

Nabiserre Jalia (Proposed Administrator Pendete lite for the estate of the late Haruna Bitalo)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application Dismissal for Nonattendance

  1. 1 Whether the application should be dismissed for nonattendance of parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither party attended the hearing on the scheduled date, and no reason was provided for their absence. In accordance with Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution due to nonattendance. The dismissal is procedural and does not address the merits of the underlying dispute.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for nonattendance

Orders

  • The application is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules.