Download

Uganda Judgment

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd and Another v Reamaton Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998) [1998] UGCA 66 (31 July 1998)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application for adjournment was refused because there was no competent appeal before the court, the notice of appeal having been struck out previously. Without a valid notice of appeal, there is no appeal to be adjourned. The purported appeal was therefore struck out as incompetent, with costs awarded to the respondent both in the Court of Appeal and the court below.

Court disposition

Appeal struck out as incompetent; application for adjournment refused.

Orders

  • The application for adjournment is refused.
  • The purported appeal is struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent in this court and the court below.

02

Material facts

Parties

Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd

Appellant

Henry Kawalya

Appellant

Reamaton Ltd

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Appeal / Application for Adjournment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Counsel for the appellant sought an adjournment to enable argument of an application for filing notice of appeal out of time.
Respondent
Counsel for the respondent opposed the adjournment, arguing that there was no competent appeal before the court since the notice of appeal had already been struck out, relying on Haji Nurdin Matovu vs. Ben Kiwanuka [Civil Application No. 12/91 Supreme Court], and requested that the appeal be struck out under Rules 81 and 101(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Haji Nurdin Matovu vs. Ben Kiwanuka [Civil Application No. 12/91 Supreme Court]

    An appeal cannot be adjourned or entertained in the absence of a valid notice of appeal.

  2. 02

    Court of Appeal Rules

    Rules 81 and 101(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules empower the court to strike out incompetent appeals.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application for adjournment was refused because there was no competent appeal before the court, the notice of appeal having been struck out previously. Without a valid notice of appeal, there is no appeal to be adjourned. The purported appeal was therefore struck out as incompetent, with costs awarded to the respondent both in the Court of Appeal and the court below.

Court disposition

Appeal struck out as incompetent; application for adjournment refused.

  • The application for adjournment is refused.
  • The purported appeal is struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent in this court and the court below.

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

[1998] UGCA 66

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA -—<sup>A</sup>

/ C£

J

3 THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA

AT KAMPALA

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 1998

APPELLANTS io 1. UGANDA CORPORATION CREAMERIES LTD) 2. HENRY KAWALYA )

VERSUS

REAMATON LTD RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON. MR. JUSTICE C. M. KATO, J. A., HON. LADY JUSTICE A. E. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE, J. A. & HON. MR. JUSTICE S. G. ENGWAU, J. A.

<sup>20</sup> Date: 31st July, 1998

Court: This is an application for an adjournment to enable the Counsel for the appellant to argue an application for filing notice of appeal out of time. In his reply to this application Counsel for the respondent opposed the adjournment on the ground that there is no competent appeal before the court to be adjourned as notice of appeal had been struck out on 1/7/98 by this court. He based his argument on the authority of: Haji Nurdin Matovu vs. Ben Kiwanuka [Civil Application No. 12/91 Supreme Court]. In the premises he submitted that the appeal be struck out under Rules 81 and 101 (b) of Court of Appeal Rules.

> An appeal is commenced We think that this application to have the appeal adjourned is devoid of merit, as in fact there is no competent appeal before this court to be adjourned, the notice of appeal having been struck out on 1/7/98 by a notice of appeal without which there can be no appeal.

> In the result we decline to giant the application for an adjournment of the appeal and we strike out the purported appeal as being incompetent with costs to the respondent in this court and the court below.

30

40

C. M. Kato Justice of Appeal.

A. E. Mpagi-Bahigeine Justice of Appeal.

S. G. Engwau Justice of Appeal.

I certify that this is the true copy of the original.

$\overline{1}$

Murangira J. Registrar Court of Appeal.

| CERRIED TRUE CORY OF THE ORIGINAL | | |-----------------------------------|---------| | Dwan | | | Registry of the man | Umanda. |

$10$

$20$

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.

Haji Nurdin Matovu vs. Ben Kiwanuka [Civil Application No. 12/91 Supreme Court]

Case cited

Court of Appeal Rules, Rules 81 and 101(b)

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.