[2005] UGCA 85
The court held that since the appellant initiated the appeal and subsequently withdrew it, the respondent was entitled to costs. The rationale was that the respondent was brought to court by the appellant and had incurred expenses in preparation for the hearing. The court also ordered that the respondent's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] UGCA 85
- Parties
- Appellant: Barbara F. Ackah-Yensu as the Trust Administrator of Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust; Respondent: Haji Haruna Semakula; Respondent: General Parts (U) Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 29 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Withdrawal Before Hearing
- Outcome
- Appeal withdrawn; costs awarded to respondent.
- Judges
- Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Kitumba, JA
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Appeal, Costs Award, Return of Exhibits
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Barbara F. Ackah-Yensu as the Trust Administrator of Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust
Appellant
Haji Haruna Semakula
Respondent
General Parts (U) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Withdrawal Before Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant should be permitted to withdraw the appeal.
- 2 Whether costs should be awarded to the respondent upon withdrawal of the appeal.
- 3 Whether the respondent's properties and documents exhibited in court should be returned.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the appellant initiated the appeal and subsequently withdrew it, the respondent was entitled to costs. The rationale was that the respondent was brought to court by the appellant and had incurred expenses in preparation for the hearing. The court also ordered that the respondent's properties and documents exhibited in court be returned to him, as requested by his counsel and not opposed by the appellant. The withdrawal of the appeal was granted on the application of the appellant, but the respondent was awarded costs to ensure fairness and compensate for the inconvenience and expenses incurred.
Court Disposition
Appeal withdrawn; costs awarded to respondent.
Orders
- The appeal is withdrawn on the application of the appellant.
- The respondent is awarded costs of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
### IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
# CORAM: HON. JUSTICE L. E. M. MUKASA-KIKONYOGO, DCJ HON. JUSTICE A. E. N. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE, JA HON. JUSTICE C. N. B. KITUMBA, JA
### CIVIL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2003
# BARBARA F. ACKAH-YENSU AS THE TRUST ADMINISTRATOR OF NON-PERFORMING ASSETS RECOVERY TRUST ::::: APPELLANT
#### VERSUS
#### 1. HAJI HARUNA SEMAKULA
2. GENERAL PARTS (U) LIMITED ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
# (Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Uganda at Kampala before the Hon. Mr. Justice Okumu Wengi dated the 28<sup>th</sup> October 2002)
30 **RULING**
> When this appeal was brought before this court for hearing on $5<sup>th</sup>$ May 2005, it was adjourned to today 18-05-05 with a view of giving the parties time of exploring the possibility of reaching a settlement in a long-standing dispute. When once again it came before us this morning Ms. Irene Mulyagoja was still representing Barbara F. Ackah- Yensu AS THE TRUST OF ADMINISTRATOR NON PERFORMING ASSETS RECOVERY TRUST. She applied for an adjournment to enable the management to consult the Board of Trustees, the
final decision making body, for further instructions on the She, however, intimated to this court that, following matter. the directive of the Minister of State for Finance, the appellant intended to withdraw the appeal.
The application for an adjournment was opposed by Mr. 10 Kugumikiriza, learned counsel for the respondent, on the ground that it was unnecessary and time wasting. He prayed this court to prevail on the appellant and order her to withdraw the appeal with costs to his client.
On the record before court we do not believe that the appellant was not aware of the letter from the Minister. It was filed in court and counsel for the appellant should have brought it to the attention of her client in case she had not received it. We gave the appellant two weeks to negotiate a settlement but this The appellant is, instead, promising to was not done. withdraw in the future which is uncertain.
We are of the view that this matter has to be brought to a close. The appellant is, hereby ordered to proceed with the appeal.
Dated at Kampala this 18<sup>th</sup> day of May 2005.
L. E. M. MUKASA-K 30 HON. DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE
$\overline{2}$
#### **MPÁGI-BAHIGEINE** $A. E. N.$ HON. JUSTICE OF APPEAL
$10$
C. N. B. KITUMBA HON. JUSTICE OF APPEAL
# Ms Mulyagonja states:
I have received instructions that I withdraw this appeal but each party to meet its own costs.
# Mr. Kugumikiriza states:
I am obliged that my learned friend has eventually seen it. I, therefore, do not object to the application for withdrawal but to the prayer that each party bears its own costs. It has no The respondent had made adequate justification at all. preparations for the hearing of this appeal. We even have filed a list of authorities. In all fairness the respondent should be awarded costs since it was the appellant who decided to withdraw. I also pray that the respondent's properties and relevant documents produced into court as exhibits be returned to him. The lists of the said exhibits appear on pages 154-155 and 208-248 of the record of proceedings. Those are my prayers.
URT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA CERTIFIED TRUE COPY GIS RAR
## Ms Mulyasgonja states:
I have no objection to returning the respondent's properties and their titles exhibited into court to him. However, on costs the matter had not gone on trial. We also prepared for the appeal and compiled a list of authorities. I still pray that each party pays its own costs. There is no justification for awarding
the respondent costs.
## Court
On the application of the appellant the appeal is, hereby, withdrawn. In our view the respondent is entitled to costs because he was brought to court by the appellant. He is, hence, awarded costs of this appeal.
Further it is ordered that the properties and documents 20 produced and exhibited into court be returned to the respondent as prayed by his counsel.
$\overline{4}$
Dated at Kampala this $18^{th}$ day of May 2005.
L. E. M. MUI HON. DEPURY CHIEF JUSTICE
A. E. N. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE HON. JUSTICE OF APPEAL
HON. JUSTICE OF APPEAL
