Download

Uganda Judgment

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Nakiranda v British American Tobacco (1984) (U) Ltd (CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2000) [2001] UGCA 53 (12 September 2001)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court held that since the respondent's counsel withheld consent to the withdrawal of the appeal, the proper course under Rule 93(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules was to dismiss the appeal with costs to the respondent. The court accepted the withdrawal but, in the absence of consent, ordered dismissal and awarded costs accordingly.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed with costs to respondent

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent under Rule 93(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

02

Material facts

Parties

Petra Nakiranda

Appellant

British American Tobacco (1984) (U) Ltd.

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant sought to withdraw the appeal, presumably under the relevant rules of procedure, but did not secure the respondent's consent.
Respondent
The respondent's counsel withheld consent to the withdrawal, thereby triggering the application of Rule 93(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and sought dismissal of the appeal with costs.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Rule 93(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules

    An appeal may be withdrawn, but if the respondent withholds consent, the court may dismiss the appeal with costs to the respondent.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court held that since the respondent's counsel withheld consent to the withdrawal of the appeal, the proper course under Rule 93(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules was to dismiss the appeal with costs to the respondent. The court accepted the withdrawal but, in the absence of consent, ordered dismissal and awarded costs accordingly.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed with costs to respondent

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent under Rule 93(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal of Uganda

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Judgment

[2001] UGCA 53

$\mathbf{c} =$ THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

HON. JUSTICE L. E. M. MUKASA-KIKONYOGO, DCJ CORAM: HON. JUSTICE C. M. KATO, JA HON. JUSTICE C. N. B. KITUMBA, JA

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2000

PETRA NAKIRANDA ...................................

VERSUS

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO(1984) (U) LTD.} ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

> (Appeal Arising out of High Court Civil Suit No. 450 of 1997 before Hon. J. P. Tabaro, dated 26<sup>th</sup> May 2000)

RULING OF THE COURT

We accept the withdrawal of the appeal. As the counsel for the respondent has withheld the consent the appeal is, hence, dismissed with costs to the respondent under Rule 93 $\mathfrak{m}(4)$ of the Rules of this Court.

L. E. M. MUKASA-KIKONYOGO DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE C. M. KÄTO JUSTICE OF APPEAL C. N. B. KITUMBA

THE SET OF

12th | 9/2001

JUSTICE OF APPEAL

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Rule 93(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.