[2018] UGSC 14

[2018] UGSC 14

The Supreme Court held that it was irregular for parties to consent to an order extending time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal after a full bench had already struck out the appeal and the Notice of Appeal. The orders contained in the consent and endorsed by a single judge could not overturn the orders of the full bench. Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 was therefore incompetently placed before the Court, as it was a disguised attempt to revive an appeal that had already been struck out. The Court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs.

Citation
[2018] UGSC 14
Parties
Appellant: Mubeezi James; Appellant: Ntungire Steven; Appellant: Misaki Kaviigi; Respondent: Kasule Samuel
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
21 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Extension of Time, Consent Orders, Stay of Execution
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Notice of Appeal Extension of Time Consent Orders Stay of Execution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mubeezi James

Appellant

Ntungire Steven

Appellant

Misaki Kaviigi

Appellant

Kasule Samuel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order extending time to file and serve the Notice of Appeal could validly overturn a prior decision of the full bench striking out the appeal and Notice of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 was properly before the Supreme Court after the appeal had been struck out by a full bench.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that it was irregular for parties to consent to an order extending time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal after a full bench had already struck out the appeal and the Notice of Appeal. The orders contained in the consent and endorsed by a single judge could not overturn the orders of the full bench. Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 was therefore incompetently placed before the Court, as it was a disguised attempt to revive an appeal that had already been struck out. The Court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 is dismissed as incompetently placed before the Supreme Court.
  • No order as to costs.