[1995] UGSC 31
The Supreme Court found that there was no record of an order adjourning the appeal until the finalisation of the related High Court cases. The appellant's counsel sought an adjournment on a ground not supported by the record and failed to resolve the representation dispute or prosecute the appeal on two previous...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1995] UGSC 31
- Parties
- Appellant: G. M. Combine Limited; Respondent: Inam Ul Haq Paul
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 38 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Adjournment and Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- Wambuzi, CJ, Oder, JSC, Tsekooko, JSC
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment, Representation Dispute, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- 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
G. M. Combine Limited
Appellant
Inam Ul Haq Paul
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Adjournment and Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be adjourned pending finalisation of related High Court cases.
- 2 Whether there was a valid ground for a further adjournment of the appeal.
- 3 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court found that there was no record of an order adjourning the appeal until the finalisation of the related High Court cases. The appellant's counsel sought an adjournment on a ground not supported by the record and failed to resolve the representation dispute or prosecute the appeal on two previous occasions. The court determined that it was not prepared to grant a third adjournment for the same reasons. Accepting the respondent's submission, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA
AT MENGO
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 38 OF 1993
BETWEEN
G. M. COMBINE LIMITED ................ ....... APPELLANT A N D
INAM UL HAQ PAUL .......................... RESPONDENT
## RULING
This is an application for an adjournment on the ground that on the $5/12/94$ this court made an order to the effect that this appeal will remain adjourned until finalisation in the High Court of two cases in which the appellant is in party. The cases are G. M. Combined Ltd. Vs. Uganda Development Bank and others HCCS No. 151/94 and G. M Combined Ltd V. A. K. Detergents HCCS No. 384/94. The application was agued by Mr. Senabulya holding brief for M/s. Mubiru Kalenge and Bwanika who represented the Appellant company in receiveship.
The application was opposed by Mr. Lubega Matovu for the respondent.
According to the record, when this appeal came up for hearing on 21/9/94. There was a dispute as to who represented the appellant. Two sets of advocates appeared Mubiru Kalenge and Bwanika for the appellant company and Kavuma Kabenge and Mbabazi. The first set represented the Company in receivership and the second set represented the company. The appeal was adjourned for this matter to be sorted out.
On the $5/12/94$ the two sets of lawyers again appeared and the matter had not been resolved and the appeal was
$.../2$
again adjourned as before. There was no order to adjourn the appeal till finalisation of any cases in the High Court.
The two sets of lawyers did not appear but Kalenge and Bwanika briefed Mr. Senabulya to apply an adjournment on a ground which is not borne out by the record. There may well the be a dispute between the company and Receivers, Hr. counsel should have raised these matters on the last two occasions, and should have been before the court to argue these matters.
This court is not prepared to grant an adjournment for the third time for the same reasons. / Mr. Senabulya is not prepared to prosecute the appeal, we accordingly accept Mr. Matovu's submission that this appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution. Costs to the respondent.
> S. W. W. WAMBUZI CHIEF JUSTICE
A. H. O. ODER OF THE COURT ST
J. W. N. TSEKOOKO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF
DATED 14/3/95.