[1998] UGCA 66
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...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] UGCA 66
- Parties
- Appellant: Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd; Appellant: Henry Kawalya; Respondent: Reamaton Ltd
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Adjournment
- Outcome
- Appeal struck out as incompetent; application for adjournment refused.
- Judges
- Engwau, JA, Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, kato ,JA
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment Application, Notice of Appeal, Striking Out Appeal
- 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
Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd
Appellant
Henry Kawalya
Appellant
Reamaton Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Adjournment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for adjournment of the appeal is competent in the absence of a valid notice of appeal.
- 2 Whether there is a competent appeal before the court to be adjourned.
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.
Orders
- The application for adjournment is refused.
- The purported appeal is struck out as incompetent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
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. |
$10$
$20$