“Failure to Prosecute an Appeal Cause-Listed for Hearing Leads to Dismissal.” High Court at Kale Rules.

Waboga David
Dec 13, 2025
6 min read

🔔Abandonment of Appeal in Land Dispute

This alert summarizes the judgment of the High Court of Uganda at Kabale concerning the dismissal of a land appeal due to the appellant's failure to prosecute by filing written submissions.

Facts

The appellant, Niyonsaba Arthur, initiated a land claim (No. 32 of 2022) against the respondents, Bizimutuma George (first respondent) and Nyirabasangwa Esther (second respondent, his wife), in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Kisoro. The suit land is located in Gasuri village, Sooko parish, Muramba sub-county, Kisoro district.

The appellant alleged that the first respondent sold him the land for UGX 25,000,000 on August 27, 2021, as evidenced by a sale agreement (admitted as PEX1). The first respondent had previously acquired the land via a purchase agreement dated May 10, 2019 (admitted as PEX2), which was handed over to the appellant post-transaction. Witnesses to PEX1 included Hategeka Charles (a broker), the second respondent, and the Vice Chairman LC1 of Gasuri village (Mwikarago).

The appellant claimed the respondents failed to vacate the land and continued cultivating it, leading to claims for trespass, a permanent injunction, eviction, declaration of ownership, general damages, and costs.

The respondents countered that the transaction was not a sale but a money-lending arrangement. The first respondent admitted borrowing UGX 4,700,000 from the appellant on August 20, 2021, with PEX2 serving as security. They claimed the appellant insisted on drafting a "sale agreement" (PEX1) as a disguise. The respondents asserted partial repayment of UGX 3,000,000 (from selling two cows in December 2021) and UGX 7,000,000 in total, though payments were allegedly unwitnessed and recorded only in the appellant's book. Defense witness DW3 (Hategeka Charles) testified that he facilitated the transaction as security for a loan, not a sale, and that two agreements were executed: one for the loan and another handing over prior sale agreements as collateral. No boundary marks were planted, contradicting the appellant's claims.

The Chief Magistrate (His Worship Kenneth Komakec) delivered judgment on March 7, 2023, finding the transaction to be a "money lending transaction" disguised as a land sale, deeming it illegal and unenforceable. The suit was dismissed, and PEX1 and PEX2 were ordered deposited in court.

Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a memorandum of appeal on April 24, 2023. The appeal was cause-listed at the High Court sitting at Kisoro on October 20, 2025, where parties agreed to proceed via written submissions. The appellant was to file by October 31, 2025; respondents by November 7, 2025; and rejoinder by November 11, 2025. The appellant failed to file submissions, rendering the respondents' submissions (filed November 18, 2025) redundant.

Issues

The lower court framed two primary issues for resolution:

(a) Whether there was a valid transaction of sale of land.

(b) What remedies were available to the parties?

The appellant's memorandum of appeal raised four grounds challenging the lower court's decision:

The learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to rely on the written sale agreement (PEX1).
The learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by relying on DW3's (Hategeka Charles) testimony, which was allegedly full of falsehoods.
The learned Trial Magistrate erred in law by relying solely on the respondents' oral evidence without corroboration.
The learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by relying on locus proceedings in the judgment, despite no such proceedings being on record.

However, the High Court did not address these substantive issues on the merits. The sole dispositive issue became whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellant's failure to comply with the court's briefing schedule.

Submissions

At the High Court hearing on October 20, 2025, both parties agreed to argue the appeal through written submissions rather than oral arguments. The court set a strict timeline:

Appellant's submissions due by October 31, 2025.
Respondents' reply due by November 7, 2025.
Appellant's rejoinder due by November 11, 2025.

The appellant's counsel did not file submissions by the deadline or at all, demonstrating a procedural failure. The respondents filed their submissions on November 18, 2025, but these were deemed redundant due to the appellant's non-compliance. No submissions in rejoinder were filed. The court noted that this failure amounted to abandonment of the appeal, emphasizing the need for appellants to actively prosecute their cases to balance the rights of both parties.

Legal Representation

Appellant
Represented by M/S Bikangiso and Co. Advocates. Ms. Fiona Kiconco appeared for the appellant at the virtual delivery of the ruling on December 11, 2025.
Respondents
Represented by M/S Beitwenda and Co. Advocates. Ms. Rebekah Ayesiga appeared for the respondents at the virtual delivery of the ruling on December 11, 2025.

Court's Findings

The High Court dismissed the appeal without evaluating the substantive grounds, focusing instead on procedural abandonment. Justice Ssemogerere found that the appellant's failure to file submissions constituted abandonment, citing multiple grounds for such a determination: lack of interest, settlement (not applicable here), procedural failure, or formal withdrawal (also not applicable). The court emphasized procedural compliance under the Civil Procedure Rules (S.I. 71-1), particularly Order XLIII.

On the abandonment due to procedural failure:

"The appeal stands dismissed for reason of abandonment of the appeal by the appellant... In the instant case, appellant failed to file submissions in support of the appeal." The court noted that appeals may be abandoned for "procedural failure where the appellant fails to meet deadlines or procedural requirements to argue the appeal. Court is entitled to treat the appeal as abandoned."

On the rationale for appeals and consequences of non-prosecution Quoting from Abwongoto and 4 others v Atiang Christine (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2023):

"It should be noted that an appeal can only be determined upon parties arguing the grounds framed for the appeal by pointing out a party’s disagreement with the decision of the lower trial court before the appellate court."

The judge added:

"This rationale serves the ends of justice and is an extension of the constitutional right of parties to be heard." He further stated: "I add, that in appeals, there is a need to balance the act between the successful party’s right to enjoy the fruits of their judgment and the unsuccessful party’s right to appeal."

Citing Karurie v Kamau (Civil Appeal E134 of 2021, 2025 KECA 366, KLR):

"The Court makes the order upon being moved by any party or, significantly on its own motion. It is a clean-up exercise born by the need for rationality in appellate litigation and practice."

The court referenced Order XLIII Rule 13(1) ("On the day fixed... the appellant shall be heard in support of the appeal") and Rule 31(2) ("...the court may order the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution or may make such other order as may seem just."). It described the appeal as a "non-starter appeal" per Abwongoto, and invoked Rule 14 for ending litigation: Quoting Okelenge Alexander v Watulo Wekesa Joseph (Misc. App. No. 285 of 2025, 2025 UGHC 1053) and Jasbir Singh Rai v Tarlochan Singh Rai and 4 others (2007 eKLR): "This is a doctrine that which enables courts to say litigation must come to an end regardless of what parties think of the decision which has been handed down."

"The grounds notwithstanding, the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal. The effect of a decision under Order XLIII Rule 31, of the Civil Procedure Rules is final."

The court upheld the lower court's judgment implicitly by dismissing the appeal, without disturbing the finding that the transaction was an illegal money-lending disguise.

Holding

The High Court;

DISMISSED the appeal for want of prosecution
ORDERED the sale agreement marked PEX2 (deposited in the lower court) be returned to the First Respondent
AWARDED costs to the Respondents

The effect of the dismissal under Order XLIII Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules is final.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Key Takeaways

Appellants must strictly comply with court-ordered timelines for filing submissions. Failure to do so may result in dismissal for want of prosecution.
Legal representatives must maintain diligence in prosecuting appeals. Mere filing of a memorandum of appeal is insufficient without following through on procedural requirements.
Courts will enforce finality in litigation where appellants fail to prosecute their appeals, protecting respondents' rights to enjoy judgment fruits.
When an appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution, the merits of the underlying grounds of appeal remain unexamined, and the trial court's decision stands.
The Chief Magistrate's finding that the transaction was an illegal money-lending arrangement disguised as a land sale remains undisturbed.

Read the full case below