Share
National Council of Sports v JJagwe Robert (COA-O 0-cv-cA-0168-2016) [2020] UGCA 2182 (30 November 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] UGCA 2182
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Bamugemereire, JA, Musota, JA, Kibeedi Mutangula, JA
- Case number
- COA-O 0-cv-cA-0168-2016
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Bamugemereire, JA, Musota, JA, Kibeedi Mutangula, JA
- Case number
- COA-O 0-cv-cA-0168-2016
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court found that both parties had mutually agreed to withdraw the appeal by consent, as evidenced by their joint application and confirmation before the court. In accordance with Rule 94(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the court endorsed the withdrawal and struck out the appeal. The court further exercised its discretion on costs, ordering that each party bear its own costs, as there was no contest or adjudication on the merits and both parties had consented to the withdrawal. The decision was based on the principle that parties are at liberty to settle or withdraw proceedings by consent, and the court's role is to formalize such agreements where appropriate.
Court disposition
appeal withdrawn by consent and struck out; each party to bear its own costs
Orders
- The appeal is struck out by consent of both parties.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
National Council of Sports
Appellant Counsel: Mudoola DennisJjagwe Robert
Respondent Counsel: Shadiya Natenanya03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Withdrawn by Consent Before Hearing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by consent of both parties.
- 02
Whether costs should be awarded upon withdrawal of the appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the appellant informed the court that both parties had agreed by consent to withdraw the appeal and only awaited the court's endorsement of the consent. The appellant requested that the appeal be struck out accordingly.
- Respondent
- The respondent, through counsel, confirmed agreement and consented to the withdrawal of the appeal as proposed by the appellant.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 94(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules
An appeal may be withdrawn by consent of the parties at any time before judgment is delivered, subject to the court's endorsement.
- 02
Practice direction and judicial discretion on costs
Ordinarily, each party bears its own costs where an appeal is withdrawn by consent, unless the court orders otherwise.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court found that both parties had mutually agreed to withdraw the appeal by consent, as evidenced by their joint application and confirmation before the court. In accordance with Rule 94(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the court endorsed the withdrawal and struck out the appeal. The court further exercised its discretion on costs, ordering that each party bear its own costs, as there was no contest or adjudication on the merits and both parties had consented to the withdrawal. The decision was based on the principle that parties are at liberty to settle or withdraw proceedings by consent, and the court's role is to formalize such agreements where appropriate.
Obiter and limits
- The court encourages parties to resolve disputes amicably where possible, as this promotes judicial economy and reduces unnecessary litigation.
- Withdrawal by consent is a legitimate means of terminating appellate proceedings, provided the court is satisfied that the consent is genuine and not contrary to public policy.
Court disposition
appeal withdrawn by consent and struck out; each party to bear its own costs
- The appeal is struck out by consent of both parties.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA(COA) AT KAMPALA
CASE NUMBER: COA-00-CV-CA-0168-2016
DATE OF FILING: Wednesday, 13-07-2016
PARTIES: NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SPORTS Vs JJAGWE ROBERT
CORAM: Hon Lady Justice Bamugemereire Catherine B. K, JA. Hon. Mr. Justice Stephen Musota,JA Hon. Mr. Justice Muzamiru Mutangula Kibeedi, JA
Proceedings:
m<sup>a</sup> Nov. 2020
Denvis Mudoola fi Appollaut Shaddrye Mahamaye Papulen<br>15 à Court.<br>1 Josephie (Respondent) is n' aut andis & Respondent-25/11/2020, 16:10 $\mathcal{L}^{1}$
$1$ of $1$
$\mathcal{L}$ 20.11.2020 Danis Mudools: 2018 me Signed a Career & with door this matter. We mere pendig Cant hearing. endourenen-The Caults Kept this with Smoll. perdip.
Japune: 12 me au $\mathcal{L}$ jointly agreed with doors the appel. Court. Pulif<br>Court Paul for the Appellants leas informed thus Court that Sometime ii 2018 bolt paulies agreed by Consent & with draw ethis appeal and they only awaited the
Conseul of this const to actualisé Ilies proxen. Jaque: Respandent I afrèe Mai une consented it arte dom ettris appeal.<br>Itus appeal.<br>Itus view of ettre withdr or this appeal sy both parties under R 94 (1) this Court hereby
$Costs$
accordingly.
Each pany shall
ousn
bear luis
Johneer X Que Jun Jun 34
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA rN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA(COA) AT KAI4PALA
o ease NUMBER: coA-00-cv-cA-01 68-201 6
DATE OF FILING: Wednesday, 13-07-2016
PARTIES: NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SPORTS Vs JJAGWE ROBERT
CORAM: Hon Lady Justice Bamugemereire Catherine B. K, JA. Hon. Mr. Justice Stephen Musota,JA Hon. Mr. Justice Muzamiru Mutangula Kibeedi, JA
Proceedings: <sup>q</sup> W'uP T1', {A/\. d-}3. L!-? 0 ( A/\faD \ <sup>N</sup> P\( <sup>a</sup> t\ lof <sup>I</sup> [o{ c-L Rt <sup>q</sup> 2511112020, l6:10
Jague: Mat le accurate<br>Jague: Mat le Survised<br>me vallu le Survised $\geq 2$ ple ruthdraum. This speal is Struck Our on the s introvaivel 27 Couseut gycs)<br>parties, Costs
$\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathcal{L}}(\mathcal{L})$
$30/11/2020$ Mudoola Dennis for appellat Shadiya Natenanya-Logal<br>Affrer for appellal Mespondet prece but<br>this counsel absent In 2018 we find a Ansent mitralian Whith was Filed by both Parker<br>I their Ogal cosel pending endorse by court. Jagfure: The Position At Appeal dismissed on AC<br>Chim Maraval try tal<br>Consent<br>To by both parties Consented<br>To by both parties Con
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.