Muhenda Mtlton v Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2011) [2016] UGCA 97 (9 May 2016)

THE REPUBIC OF UGANDA

$\overline{1}$

$5$

$\mathsf{I}^{\mathsf{O}}$

$\flat$ 0

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2011

MUHENDA MILTON .................................... VERSUS

UGANDA ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD ......... RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON. LADY JUSTICE SOLOMY BALUNGI BOSSA, JA HON. MR. JUSTICE KENNETH KAKURU, JA HON. LADY JUSTICE MUSOKE ELIZABETH, JA

Appeal from the Judgment of Her Lordship Hon. Lady Justice Stella Arach Amoko delivered on 3^rd day of August 2010 *in Civil Suit No 730 of 2005.*]

RULING OF THE COURT

This appeal was filed on the 7^th September 2011. On 3^rd November 2014 a joint conferencing memorandum was filed following a joint scheduling conference. Written legal arguments for the respondent were filed on the 20^th February 2016. We have not been able to see the appellant's legal arguments on the record.

On the 27^th July 2015 the parties appeared before this court for hearing this appeal Mr. Guma Denis appeared for the appellant 25 while Mr. Kabombo appeared for the Respondent. This court noted that the Record of Appeal was incomplete. It lacked lower court exhibits and some parts of the record relating to testimonies of some witness were missing. DR

The court nonetheless permitted the appellant to proceed with the appeal on condition that a supplementary record would be filed before the next hearing.

When this appeal came up today for hearing Mr. Guma Denis appeared for the Appellant while Mr. Kabombo Andrew appeared for the respondent. Both counsel informed court that they were ready to proceed. Court pointed out to the appellant's lawyer the order of this court of $27^{\text{th}}$ July 2015 directing him to file a supplementary record and noted that no such supplementary record had been filed.

l5

$\mathsf{lo}$

Mr. Guma Denis conceded that he neither had nor complied with the order of the court. He there sought an adjournment to enable him file a supplementary record.

This ruling is in respect of the application, which is opposed by Mr. Kibombo for the respondent on account that the appeal is 15 incompetent.

We have listened carefully to both Counsel. We have also perused this court record. We have not be given any reason why the appellant was unable to file a supplementary record since $27^th$ July 2015 when he undertook to do so.

A party who seeks an adjournment must provide sufficient cause. There is no sufficient cause that has been provided by the appellant. Even if we were inclined to grant the adjournment we find there is nothing to adjourn as the whole appeal is incompetent as it offends Rule 87 of the rules of this court which requires that a record of appeal must contain a complete and certified lower court record. The record before this court upon which this appeal is based is insufficient and incompetent.

This appeal is therefore incompetent and it is hereby struck out with costs.

$\mathsf{Z}$