Share
Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd and Another v Reamaton Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998) [1998] UGCA 66 (31 July 1998)
- Citation
- [1998] UGCA 66
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Engwau, JA, Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, kato ,JA
- Case number
- Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Engwau, JA, Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, kato ,JA
- Case number
- Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
AppellantHenry Kawalya
AppellantReamaton Ltd
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Adjournment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for adjournment of the appeal is competent in the absence of a valid notice of appeal.
- 02
Whether there is a competent appeal before the court to be adjourned.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Judgment
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. |
$10$
$20$
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.