[2021] UGHCLD 101
The plaintiffs failed to file a rejoinder to the written statement of defence and took no further action to prosecute the suit for almost a year after the defence was filed. This inaction is interpreted as loss of interest in the matter and amounts to an admission of the defence. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] UGHCLD 101
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Omar Ahmed; Plaintiff: Hassan Ahmed; Plaintiff: Hussein Ahmed; Defendant: Patrick Masambu
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Suit No. 894 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling
- Outcome
- dismissed
- Judges
- Nkonge, J
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Failure to File Rejoinder, Exparte Proceedings, Consent Order, Late Filing of Defence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Omar Ahmed
Plaintiff
Hassan Ahmed
Plaintiff
Hussein Ahmed
Plaintiff
Patrick Masambu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to plaintiffs' inaction.
- 2 Whether failure to file a rejoinder to the written statement of defence amounts to admission of the defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiffs failed to file a rejoinder to the written statement of defence and took no further action to prosecute the suit for almost a year after the defence was filed. This inaction is interpreted as loss of interest in the matter and amounts to an admission of the defence. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed for want of prosecution under Section 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act Cap 13.
Court Disposition
dismissed
Orders
- The suit is dismissed under Section 17(2)(a) Judicature Act Cap 13.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
#### **LAND DIVISION**
#### CIVIL SUIT NO. 895 OF 2017
#### 1. OMAR AHMED
2. HASSAN AHMED
3. HUSSEIN AHMED ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
#### **VERSUS**
PATRICK MASAMBU::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Date: 7/4/2021
## Time: 10.00 a.m.
## BEFORE: LADY JUSTICE ALEXANDRA NKONGE RUGADYA:
#### **RULING:**
This matter was fixed and cause listed for hearing today, $7/4/2021$ at 9.30 a.m. None of the parties however is in court. On $19/9/2021$ counsel Stanley Omony for the plaintiffs, had written to this court asking for a date of hearing.
The matter had proceeded exparte against the defendant, following his failure to file WSD. A locus visit was fixed after the formal proof was conducted on $29/8/2019$ . On $12/12/2019$ a consent was entered between the parties whereupon the plaintiffs conceded to a late filing of the WSD.
The exparte proceedings were subsequently set aside, as per order of this court dated $17/12/2019$ . The ruling was delivered on $2/7/2020$ . The WSD was filed on $7/7/2020$ . Since then, no other action has taken place. The plaintiff did not file any rejoinder to the WSD. The presumption is that they admitted to the statements in the defence.
In light of the fact that there was no rejoinder and indeed no further follow up on this matter almost one year later, I take it therefore that the plaintiffs have since lost interest in pursuing the matter any further.
I accordingly dismiss it under Section 17(2) (a) Judicature Act Cap 13.
nge Rugadya Alexand **JUDGE**
$7/4/2021$