Share
Samwili Kibuuka v Eriya Lugeya Lubanga (Civil Appeal No: 211 of 2013) [2019] UGCA 2121 (27 November 2019)
- Citation
- [2019] UGCA 2121
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kasule, JA, Musoke, JA, Musota, JA
- Case number
- Civil Appeal No: 211 of 2013
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kasule, JA, Musoke, JA, Musota, JA
- Case number
- Civil Appeal No: 211 of 2013
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court found that the appellant and his counsel, who were on record, failed to appear for the hearing despite evidence of proper service. The advocates for the appellant did not formally withdraw from the record or notify the court of their inability to represent the appellant. The court concluded that the appellant had lost interest in prosecuting the appeal, which had been pending since 2013. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 100(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and costs were awarded to the respondent.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- Civil Appeal No. 211 of 2013 is hereby dismissed.
- The appellant shall pay costs to the respondent.
02
Material facts
Parties
Samwiri Kibuuka
Appellant Counsel: Luzige, Kamya and Kavuma AdvocatesEriya Lugeya Lubanga
Respondent Counsel: Jingo Christopher03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 100(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
- 02
Whether proper service was effected on the appellant's advocates.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The respondent, through counsel Jingo Christopher, argued that the appellant and his counsel were absent despite being duly served. He submitted that the matter had been pending since 2013 and prayed for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent.
- Respondent
- The appellant and his counsel were absent and did not present any arguments or submissions to the court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 100(1) Judicature Court of Appeal Rules and Directions
An appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution if the appellant fails to appear or take necessary steps to prosecute the appeal.
- 02
Court of Appeal practice and affidavit of service
Service on record advocates is deemed service on the party unless the advocates have formally withdrawn from the record.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court found that the appellant and his counsel, who were on record, failed to appear for the hearing despite evidence of proper service. The advocates for the appellant did not formally withdraw from the record or notify the court of their inability to represent the appellant. The court concluded that the appellant had lost interest in prosecuting the appeal, which had been pending since 2013. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 100(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and costs were awarded to the respondent.
Obiter and limits
- Advocates on record should formally notify the court if they lose instructions or contact with their client.
- Long delays in prosecuting appeals undermine the administration of justice.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Civil Appeal No. 211 of 2013 is hereby dismissed.
- The appellant shall pay costs to the respondent.
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 AT KAMPALA CryIL APPEAL NO: 211 OF 2013
SAMWILI KIBUUKA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT
VERSUS
ERIYA LUGEYA LUBANGA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
orqElB
This matter coming up for hearing on the 12th day of November, 2019 before HON. JUSTICE STEPHEN MUSOTA, HON. JUSTICE REMMY KASULE AND HON. LADY JUSTICE ELIZABETH MUSOKE in the presence of the Mr. Jingo Christopher Counsel for the respondent , in the absence of both parties and counsel for the Appellant.
It is hereby ordered that;-
- 1. Civil Appeal no; ZLl of 2013 is hereby dismissed. - 2. The appellant to pay costs to the respondent.
Given under my Hand and the Seal of this Honourable Court this. TIff,,,
.2019
REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL
<sup>s</sup> rslttp( <sup>t</sup>
Extracted by: M/S ]INGO, SSEMPIJ]A & CO, ADVOCATES, PLOT 15, KAMPALA ROAD, AFRICA HOUSE BUILDING 3\*o FLooR, SUITE 01 P. O. BOX 12347, KAMPAI-A
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA (COA) AT KAMPALA
CIVIL APPEAL NUMBER 0211 OF 2013
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE: $10$
HON. LADY. JUSTICE ELIZABETH MUSOKE, JA
HON. MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN MUSOTA, JA
HON. MR. JUSTICE REMMY KASULE, JA
PARTIES: $15$
SAMWIRI KIBUUKA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPELLANT
$VS.$
ERIYA LUGEYA LUBANGA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
$20$ Date: 12<sup>TH</sup> November, 2019
$\mathsf{S}$
<sup>5</sup> Appearances:
Absent : Counsel for Appellant
Mr. Jingo Christopher: Counsel for Respondent
Geoffrey Kikonyogo: Court Clerk
Ampiire Evelyn: Transcriber
Mr. Jingo:
May it please my lords Jingo Christopher for the respondent, my lords the appellant is not here with his advocate, the respondent is also not here because he is sick unable to be <sup>15</sup> here but he has sent his 2 sons
My lords, this matter has been in court for a long time
Justice Musoke:
Was he served?
Mr. Jingo:
<sup>20</sup> We were all served by court.
Justice Musoke:
But they lost instructions and contacts
5 Mr. Jingo:
My lords this an old matter, the original suit came to court in 2001 and this very appeal started in 2013 before this court, it appears my lord that the respondent who is putting in a lot of effort to ensure that this matter is heard by this court.
<sup>10</sup> In the premises my lords, we pray that the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs against the appellant. We so pray my lords.
Justice Musoke:
Under what rule
<sup>15</sup> Mr. Jingo:
Rule 100(1) Judicature Court of Appeal Rules and Directions.
Justice Musoke:
When this matter was called for hearing, counsel Jingo Christopher for the respondent was in court but the appellant was not in court and neither was his lawyer.
According to the aflidavit of service which is dated L2tt. November 2019 sworn by Kyambadde Ali it is stated in para 3 that on 1ltn day of October 2019 I duly effected service on
<sup>5</sup> Luzige Kamya and Co. Advocates located on Kirumira tower William street Kampala 2.d floor suit number 4 who refused to receive claiming that they lost instructions from the matter and also lost contacts for the client.
We note that Luzige, Kamya and Kavuma advocates are the <sup>10</sup> advocates who are on record for the appellant. They should have indicated to court why they are not here but they didn't come. So we take it that they are still the advocates for the appellant and since they were served on behalf of the appellant and they are not here, we take it that the appellant <sup>15</sup> has lost interest in the appeal.
We therefore hereby dismiss this appeal for lack of prosecution, it was filed in 2013 and up to now it has not been prosecuted. We dismiss it under Rule 100(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. We so order. We also order that costs <sup>20</sup> of this appeal will go to the respondent.
,
HON. JUSTICES OF APPEAL
I2,fr NOVEMBER 2OI9
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.