[2022] UGCA 137

#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

#### IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(Coram: Elizabeth Musoke, liluzamiru M. Kibeedi and Monica K. Mugenyi, JJA)

#### ELECTION PETITION APPLICATION No. 16 & 17 OF 2021

#### 5 WAIRA JAMES KYEWALABYE MAJEGERE SITINGO VERSUS APPLICANT

## KUBEKETERYA JAMES RESPONDENT

AND

#### ELECTION PETITION APPLICATION No. 38 OF 2022

10 APPLICANT WAIRA JAMES KYEWALABYE MAJEGERE SITINGO

VERSUS

1. KUBEKETERYAJAMES I

2. ELECToRAL CoMMTSSTON I RESPONDENTS

#### RULING OF THE COURT

#### Backqround: -

Hon. Waira James Kyewalabye Majegere Sitingo (applicant) and Hon. Kubeketerya James (1st responden\$ contested for the seat of Member of Parliament for Bunya East Constituency in the national General Eleclions held on the '14th of January 2021. Ite Electoral Commission (2.0 Respondent) declared and gazetted the 'l't respondent as the validly elected Member of Parliament for the constituency. The applicant was dissatisfied with the results and fileo a Petition in the High Court of Uganda at Jinia challenging the outcome of the election.

On the 8th of November, 2021, lte High Court (Hon. Mr. Justice lsah Sserunkuuma) dismissed the Petition and declared the'lsrrespondent as the validly elected Member of ²⁵ Parliament for Bunya County East, Mayuge District.

Poge 1 of 15

On the 9thNovember,2021, the applicant flled a Notice of Appeal and a letter requesting for a certified copy of the trial court proceedings in the Registry of the High Court of Uganda at Jinja. The applicant was able to serve the Notice of Appeal and the Letter applying for proceedings on the 2no respondent only. The applicant failed to serve the 1s1 respondenl the Notice of Appeal and the Letter applying for proceedings,

On the 16thof November 2021,the applicant filed the Memorandum of Appeal in the Registry of the Court of Appeal. As was the case with the Notice of Appeal, the applicant succeeded in serving the Memorandum of Appeal on only the 2no respondent but not the 1st respondent.

40 On the 15th of December 2021,lhe Deputy Regiskar of the Jinja High Court electronically served the applicant's Counsel a draft of the typed proceedings of the trial court, But the said proceedings were incomplete as they omitted the proceedings for the 18th day of August 2021 , Further, they contained several typing errors which the applicant's Counsel pointed out to the Registrar by their letter dated lhe 22na December 2021 and requested for rectification of the same.

ln the meantime, on the 18rh or November 2021 , the applicant filed in the Registry of this Court Election Petition Application No. 16 of 2021 against the 1't respondent seeking extension of the time within which to serve the Respondent with a Notice of Appeal. ln the same application, the applicant sought an order of substituted service to be issued against the 1't

- 45 Respondent so that he can be served with the Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal through Ihe New Vision or The Monitor newspapers. The major grounds for the application were that the 1st respondent had gone into hiding and could not be traced in order for lhe applicant's advocates to serve him personally. Further, the advocates who represenled the 1s respondent before the High Court declined service. - so On the 24th of November, 2021, the applicant filed a second Election Petition Application (EPA) against the'ls Respondent seeking to extend the time within which lo serve the Memorandum of Appeal upon the 1,t Respondent, vide: EPA No.'17 of 2021.|n the same application, the applicant once again sought an order of substituted service to be issued

55 60 against the 1rt Respondenl so that he could be served with lhe Memorandum of Appeal through Ihe New Vision or The Monitor newspapers. The major grounds for the said application were that the efforts to effect personal service upon the 'lstrespondent had failed as he could not be located at his known residence at Kyaliwajala, Mbalwa Road in Kira Municipality and his Parliamentary office located on Kingdom Mall, Kampala - Room No. E534. Further, that even the efforts to effect service on the 1st respondent through the Speaker of Parliament and the advocates who represented the 1't respondent during the High Court proceedings, Ms Muzuusa & Co. Advocates and Ms Wagabaza and Co. Advocates were futile as each one of them declined service.

On the 15th day of February 2022, the Deputy Registrar of Jinja High Court supplied the applicant's advocates the complete Record of proceedings and judgment of the trial court duly certified by him, The applicant's counsel, in turn, filed in the Registry of this court the Record of appeal on 21"r February 2022.

Further, on 21sr February 2022, lhe applicant filed in this court the 3'o Election Petition Application arising from the same election namely, EPA N0.38 of 2022, seeking to validate the Record of Appeal lodged in this Courl outside the prescribed time. The applicant also

- 70 sought validation of the service of the Record of Appeal upon the 'lst and 2nd respondents which was done out of time. The major ground upon which the application is based is that despite the vigilance on the part of the applicant's advocates to follow up the typing and certification of the proceedings of the trial court, they were availed the same after the period prescribed for filing the Record of Appeal had lapsed. - 75 Each one of the three applications was supported by an Affidavit deponed by the applicant elaborating the grounds which prompted the filing of each respective application. The respondents did not file any Affidavit in Reply in any of the three applications.

#### Representations: -

80 At the hearing of the three applications, the applicant was represented by Mr. Kalali Steven and Mr. Lule Kennedy Ben; while the 1,t Respondent was jointly represented by Mr. Asuman

Poge 3 of 15

Nyonyintono, Ms. Lydia Ntono and Mr. Daniel Mudhumbusi. The 2no Respondent was represented by Mr. Eric Ssabiti holding brief for Mr. Lugolobi Hamid. The appellant and the 1s respondent were both present in court.

85 Counsel invited this court to consider their respective written submissions which they had already filed before the hearing date,

#### Applicant's submissions: -

ln theirWritten submissions in respect of EPA No. 1612021 and EPA No. 1712021, Counsel for the applicant argued that the Applicant, through his lawyers and the process server, took all essential steps to ensure service of the Notice of Appeal and the Memorandum of Appeal on the 1't respondent within the prescribed time but he evaded service of the same in a bid to frustrate the progress of the appeal. That this is what created the need to file the instant applications seeking extensron of time to effect service on the'1't respondent by way of substituted service.

Counsel further submitted that even the'lstrespondent's advocates, M/s Wagabaza & Co es Advocates together with M/s Muzuusa & Co. Advocates, declined service of court process as they claimed to have no instructions from the 1'1 respondent to accept the court documents.

ln the premises, so submitted Counsel, it is just and equitable that the time of serving the Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal be extended and that service be effected by way of substituted service as there is sufficient cause warranting the same. Counsel further

submitted that the Applicant was diligent in exercising his right of appeal by flling the Notice of Appeal, the Letter requesting for Proceedings and the Memorandum ofAppeal in time and he duly served the same on the 2no Respondent. That evasion of service by the 1\$ Respondent constituted a good reason for grant of the prayers set out in EPA Nos, 16 & 17 ol 2021 . 100

As regards EPA No. 38 ot 2022, Counsel submitted that the failure to file the Record of Appeal in time arose due to circumstances beyond his control as it is the trial court itself, through its Officials, who failed to execute their mandate to expeditiously avail him with 105

Certified Record of Proceedings in time as required by Rule 2 of the Parliamentary Elections (Elections Petitions) (Production of Record of Appeal) Directrons Sl 141-1. Counsel prayed to this Court to flnd the delay on Court's part as reason enough or exceptional cause warranting validating the Record of Appeal filed out of time so that the Appeal is heard and disposed of on its merits.

Respondent's submissions: -

1,25

115 ln their oral submissions which they made when the three applications were called for hearing, Counsel for the 1s respondent stated that their objections to the applications were on matters of law in two aspects namely: the applicant did not effect service of the Notice of Appeal, letter requesting for the Record of proceedings and the Memorandum of Appeal as required by law.

Second, that the Record of Appeal was availed to the applicant in time, but they filed it out of time. Counsel stated that their detailed arguments on the above points of law were part ofthe Conferencing Notes which they invited us to consider as their submissions.

We have looked at the arguments of Counsel for the 1\$ respondent as set out in their written Conferencing Notes/Submissions. Counsel simply stated a truism namely, that the Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal were not served upon lhe 1st respondent within the time prescribed by the Rules of this court. Further, that the Record of Appeal was likewise filed out of time. But these are not the real issues arising from any of the three applications before us. The applicant, in his each one of the Affidavits in Support of the three applications, admitted that he did not take the required actions within the prescribed time. However, he craves to be granted leave to rectify or otherwise validate the errors and omissions on account of the reasons he has advanced which he believes constitute "sufficient reason". To that extent, the arguments of the 1't respondent are not helpful. They are irrelevant in the resolution of the real issue raised by the three applications for consideration by this court namely, whether the reasons advanced by the applicant to account for his failure lo serve the Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal on the 1st respondent plus the delay to file the Record of Appeal

Poge 5 of 15

amounts to sufficient reason to grant extension of time within the terms of Rule 5 of the Rules of this court under which the three applications were brought.

### Resolution

We have considered the pleadings and the evidence on record, as well as the submissions of counsel for either party in support of and/or in opposition to the respective Applications. The issues and evidence in the three applications are closely interconnected. As such, court on its own motion decided to consolidate the three applications and resolve the issues in one go.

The issues raised by the pleadings and submissions in the three applications can be broken down into three categories namelY:

1. Whether there was sufficient reason for the failure of the aPplicant to effect service of the Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal upon the 1't Respondent as

#### 1,45 prescribed by law.

2. Whether there was sufficient reason for the delay of the applicant to file the Record of Appeal.

## 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.

We shall resolve the three issues in the order set out above.

# 1so Non-service of the Notice of Appeal and Memo tandum of Appeal

The issue of the failure of the applicant to serve the Notice of Appeal upon the 1't Respondent arises from EPA No. 16 ot 2021, while the issue of the failure of the applicant to serve the Memorandum of Appeal upon the 1't Respondent arises from EPA. No. 17 ol 2021. By the said applications, the applicant sought orders of this court to extend the time within which to serve respectively the Notice of Appeal and the Memorandum of Appeal upon the'lst Respondent.

From the Affidavit Evidence in the said applications, the judgment against which the applicant desires to appeal was delivered by the High Court (Hon. Mr. Justice lsah Sserunkuuma) on 160 the 8th of November 2021. Ihe applicant filed the Notice of Appeal in Jinja High Court Registry on 09th November 2021 , while the Memorandum of Appeal was filed in the Registry of this court on 16tn November 2021 within the prescribed time. The challenge faced by the applicant relates only to the non-service of the Notice of Appeal and the Memorandum of Appeal upon the 1st respondent after the said documenls were duly filed in the Registries of the High Court and Court of Appeal respectively.

165 Under Rule 78 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules, service of the Notice of Appeal on the 1st respondent was supposed to be done before or within seven days after the lodging of the notice of appeal, that is to say, by 16th of November 2021.

The above Rule 78, in particular, and the Judicature (Cou( of Appeal) Rules in general, are applicable to applications which arise from an election appeal by virtue of Rule 36 of the t7o Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, S.l. No. 141-2, which provides as follows:

#### "36. Procdure generally.

SubTbct to such modifications as the court may diect in the mferests of justice and expedition of the proceedings, any rules regulating the procedure and practice on appeal from decislons of the High Court to the Cout of Appeal in civil matters shall tzs apply to appeals under this Pal of fhese Ru/es. "

0n the other hand, Rule 88(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules, imposed an obligation on the applicant to effect service of the Memorandum of Appeal upon the 1st Respondent before or within seven days after lodging the Memorandum of Appeal. The Memorandum of Appeal in the instant matter having been filed in court on 16tt'of November 180 2021 , it follows that the last day for its service upon the 1't respondent fell on the 23'o of November 2021. By the time the applicant filed EPA No. 17 of 2021 on 24th of November

2021, the time prescribed for serving the Memorandum of Appeal had just expired.

By the two applications, EPA No. 16 of 2021 and EPA No, 17 of 2021 the applicant seeks extension of time within which to serve the two court documents upon the 'lsr respondent.

18s For this Court to grant an application for extension of time Rule 5 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules requires that there must be "sufficient reason". Rule 5 is couched as follows:

### "5. Extension of time.

The court may, for svfrlglglg ertend the time limited by these Rules or by any decision of the coui or of the High Courl for the doing of any act authorised or required by these Rules, whether before or after the expiation of that time and whether before or after the doing of the act; and any reference in these Rules to any such time shall be construed as a reference to the time as ertended." [Emphasis addedl

195 The term "sufficient reason" has been held by this Court and the Supreme Court to refer to any good reason that prevented an applicant from taking an essential step within the time prescribed by the law, or other reasons why an intended appeal should be allowed to proceed though filed out of lime. See The Electoral Commission Vs Mwosuko Jacob. Election Petition Application No. 42 of 2022 (Unrepofted); Bakiite Leonard & ² Others Vs Ampaie Kzito Nseko & 2 Others. Election Petition Aoplication No. 27 of 2022

200 (Unrepoted); James Bwooi vs. Kampala City Council and Another. Supreme Court Civil Application No. 09 of 2017 (unrepofted); and Boney M. Katatumba Vs. Waheed Karim, Suprene Courl Civil Application No. 27 of 2007 (unrepoted).

The reason given by the Applicant in his Affidavits to account for his failure to effect personal service upon the 1,t respondent was that despite the concerted efforts on the part of the applicant's advocates with the assistance of the applicant, they failed to locate the 1't respondent ashe "blatantly went into hiding to have [the applicant's appeal] dismissed on a technicality for failure to take [the]essentia/ sfep of effective seruice on the [1't] respondent personally and/or frustrate tls progress".

270 The Applicant's Affidavits filed in support of the applications and the Affidavits of service filed in the two applications went to great length to explain the efforts the applicant made to serve lhe 1.r respondent with the two court documents. The following efforts standout:

The applicant using a one Ali Kyambadde, a court process server with the High Court of Uganda attached to the Court of Appeal, delivered the documents to the chambers of Muzuusa & Co, Advocates in Jinia but the receptionist rejected the documents following a

²¹⁵ phone call conversation she had with one of the advocates practicing in the firm in the hearing of the Court Process Server. The details of how the service was done are set out in Ali Kyambadde's Affidavits of Service. Ms. Muzuusa & Co. Advocates were part of the firm of advocates which represented the 1,t respondent in the High Court and before this court,

220 The same Court Process Server on diverse dates delivered the court documents to the Chambers of the 1st respondent's advocates in Kampala, Ms Wagabaza & Co. Advocates. The receptionist in the law firm, in consultation with some advocate of the same law flrm, rejected service claiming they had no instructions. But the said law firm was likewise part of the team that represented the 1st respondent during the High Court proceedings and before this court. lndeed, the chambers of Ms, Muzuusa & Co. Advocates and Ms Wagabaza & Co. Advocates were both indicated in the 1,t respondent's Answer to the Petition as his addresses for purposes of service of the court process in connection with the High Court proceedings.

230 The Court Process Server on diverse days searched for the 1st respondent at his residence and Parliamentary offices on Kingdom Mall in Kampala to no avail. The photographs and other particulars ofthe location ofthe 1,t respondent's residence and offices, the dates and times of visits, the persons he found at the respective places and the reaction of those people are all set out in detail in the Affidavits.

The Court Process Server went ahead and obtained the Cell Phone numbers of the 'ld respondent, rung him and when he did not answer the calls, the Court Clerk sent the court papers to the 1't respondent via WhatsApp. The WhatsApp message showed a "blue tick" which the Process Server stated was indicative that the'l't appellant had seen the WhatsApp message. The details of the phone number to which the Court Papers were sent, the dates and time sent, and the printout ofthe messages are all contained in the Affidavit of servrce 235

When the applicant's advocates got the reports from the Court Process Server to the effect that he had failed to serve the 1il respondent in person and that the advocates who represented the 'lst respondent in the High Court had rejected service of the cou( 240

documents, they took up the matter with the 1't respondent and his advocates. Kalali Steven, one of the applicant's advocates working in Ms Nagawa & Co. Advocates, on 24s diverse dates rung Asuman Nyonyintono with the objective of getting them to agree on the modalities of service of the court papers upon them. He refused to be served claiming he had no instructions. The details of the dates and times of the voice calls, the phone numbers and the print out of the WhatsApp chats between Kalali Steven and Asuman Nyonyintono are part of the Affidavits flled.

As we have already stated hereinabove, the 'lst respondent did not file any Affidavits to rebut the applicant's evidence. The applicant's evidence in support of his claim that personal service of the Notice of Appeal and the Memorandum of Appeal upon the 1't respondent was frustrated by the 'lst respondent himself remained uncontroverted. We find that the deliberate actions on the part of the 1.t respondent to fail or frustrate personal service of court documents on himself and/or rejection of service of his Counsel constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time under Rule 5 of the Rules of this court. 250 255

## Delav of the applicant to file the Record of Appeal.

Rule 31 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules, requires the appellant to lodge with the registrar of this court the Record of Appeal within thirty days after filing by him or her of the Memorandum of Appeal, ln the instant case, whereas the evidence on record shows lhat the Memorandum of Appeal was filed in court on the 16rh day of November 2021, the appellant's advocates filed the Record of Appeal on 21't February 2022. Ihe applicant's explanation for the delay was that it was caused by the trial court which availed him the certified record of proceedings of the trial court on '15th February 2022 and the Registra/s Certificate on the 1 7'h February 2022. Ihat soon thereafter, the applicant filed the Record on 21"tFebruary 2022. 260 265

Delay attributable entirely to courts has been held to constitute "sufficienl reason" for extension of time under Rule 5 of the Rules of this Court. See Wakavima Musoke Nsereko Vs Hon. Kasule Robert Ssebunya, EPA No. 10 of 2016 (Courl of Appeal): Electoral Commisslon

# 270 Vs Badoqi Waquma. EPA No. 06 of 2016 (Courl of Appeal): and Mansulkalal Ramii Karia Vs Attornev General. Supreme Cout Civil Application No. 1 of 2003

The evidence on record shows that one day after the trial court delivered its judgment, the applicant's advocates applied to be availed a Certifled Copy of the proceedings of the trial court. The applicant and his Counsel thereafter diligently followed up on the typing and certification of the trial court proceedings. But the fact that the judge who presided over the trial was from another Duty Station added onto the delay of court to finalize the preparation of the proceedings as it took some time to get the court file from the trial judge (at his usual duty station) back to Jinla High Courl where the proceedings were typed. Eventually on the 15'h day of December 2021 lhe Deputy Registrar of Jinja High Court sent a draft copy of the proceedings to the applicant's advocates for their perusal and confirmation as to whether they were complete. The advocates noted that the draft proceedings were incomplete and had several typing enors which they communicated to the Deputy Registrar by their letter dated 22^t December 2021.

285 Further delay arose when the copy of the proceedings got missing from the court file after certificationof thesamebytheDeputyRegistrarbutbeforebeingdeliveredtotheapplicant. lt was not until the 15th of February 2022 lhal the certified proceedings were availed to the applicant. The applicant filed the Record of Proceedings on 21"t February 2022.

From the aforesaid, we flnd that the delay to file the Record of Proceedings was caused by the failure of the trial court to avail the applicant the proceedings in time, Under Rule 87 of the Rules of this Court, the trial court proceedings are a critical component of the Record of Appeal and, accordingly the applicant could not file the Record of Appeal without them.

We accordingly find that the applicant has adduced sufficient evidence to prove that he was prevented by sufficient reason to file the record of appeal within the prescribed period.

## Decision of Court

- '1 . The application for extension of the time for service of the Notice of Appeal upon the 1't respondent is hereby granted. - 2. The application for extension of the time for service of the Memorandum of Appeal is likewise hereby granted. - 300 - 3. The filing and service of the Record of Appeal out of time is hereby validated. - 4. The applicant is granted the taxed costs in EPA Nos. 16 of 2021 and EPA No.'I7 of ²⁰²¹ only which shall be paid by the 1't respondent as the applications would not have been necessary but for his conduct. - 305 5. As for EPA No. 38 ol 2022, each party shall bear its own cost as the failure to flle the Record of Appeal was through no fault on the part of the parties to the application or their lawyers.

310 At the time of this Ruling, the respondents had already been served the Record of Appeal and flled their written submissions in the substantive appeal, EPP No. 78 of 2021. Ihe Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal were parl of the Record of Appeal wttich was served upon the respondents - albeit inegularly, The practical effect of the validation of the filing and service of the Record of Appeal is that there will be no need for the applicant to serve, once again, any of the respondents with the Notice of Appeal, the Memorandum of Appeal and the Record of Appeal.

315 On our part, we shall proceed to consider the Written Submissions of the parties in the substantive alongside the Record of Appeal and deliver our judgment on notice as earlier promised.

### Per Curiam

320 We have noted that the challenge of service of the court documents in the instant matter was aggravated by the refusal of the advocates who represented the 'lst respondent in the High Court and their staff to accept service of the Notice of Appeal and the Memorandum of appeal

allegedly because they "had no inslruclions from the client to accept service". Curiously, the advocates who claimed to have no instructions to receive service of the court documents are the same advocates rvho represented the 1,t respondenl during the hearing of these three

325 applications and the appeal itself.

> Service of the Notice of Appeal is governed by Rules 78 and 18 of the Rules of this court Rule 78 is couched in the terms below:

# "78. Service of notice of appeal on persons affecfed

- 330 (1) An intended appellant shall, before or within seven days after lodging notice of appeal, serve copies of it on all persons directly affected by the appeal; brt the couft may, on application, which may be made ex parte, direct that seruice need not be effected on any person who took no paft in the proceedings in the High Cout. - 33s (2) Where any person requied to be served with a copy of a notice of appeal gave any address for service in or in connection with the proceedings in the High Cout, and has not subsequently given any other address for service, the copy of the notice of Appeal may be served on him or her at that address, notwithstandinq that it mav be that of an advocate who has not been retained for the purpose of an appeal. " [Emphasis Added] - 340 On the other hand, as far as is relevant to the point under discussion, Rule 18 of the Rules of this court is couched as follows:

### "18 Service and transmission of documents

- (1) Where any document is required by these Rules to be seved on any Wrson, service may be effected in a way dtected in each case by the courl, which shall normally be a way in which a comparable process of the High Court could be seved; and in the absence of any special direction, it shall be made personally on the person to he served or any person entitled under rule 23 of these Ru/es to appear on his or her behalf. - (2) ... (Not applicable) - 350 (3) For the purpose of this rule, service on a paftner or a clerk of an advocate at the office of the advocate shall be taken to be seruice on the advocate. - (4) Proof of seruice may be given where necessary, by affidavit, unless r'h any case, the coul requires proof by oral evidence. " [Emphasis added]

The combined effect of the above two Rules is that:

- 1. Where an intended respondent was represented by an advocate in the High Court, service of a Notice of appeal upon that advocate or a partner of the advocate or a clerk of the advocate at the office of the advocate is good service unless and until the intended respondent furnishes this court with a different address of service. 35s - 2, No specific instructions are needed to be given to the advocate, the advocate's partner and clerk by the intended respondent before they are legally competent to receive service of the Notice of Appeal on his/her behalf. - 3. Refusal of the advocate or his partner or clerk to accept service on behalf of the intended respondent is inconsequential and cannot stall the wheels of the appellate process for as long as no other address of service has been filed in this court. - 365 370 375 380 Rule 80 ofthe Rules ofthis Court requires every person upon whom the Notice ofAppeal has been served with the Notice of Appeal to serve on the intended appellant a Notice of address of service within '14 days of being served the Notice of Appeal. Our understanding of the Rule is that, among other things, it gives an opportunity to lhe advocate who received service of the Notice of Appeal "without the client's specific instructions" to look up his/her (former) client and agree on the course of his/her future representation without stalling the wheels of the appellate process. And if no Notice of Address of Service is filed in court at that stage and served upon the intending appellant, then the future service of the Court documents upon the address for service used by the intended respondent during the proceedings in the High Court is proper service in connection with the appeal proceedings. To permit advocates to refuse service of court documents under the guise of "l have received no instructions" is bound to frustrate the operations of this court. lt is bound to contribute to the increase of the case workload currently being experienced by this court through the filing of unwarranted or otherwise avoidable applications related to servlce of documents of the appellate process. The fact that we have had to first deal with two applications about this subject of service of court documents before proceeding to deal with the substantive appeal is clear testimony of this, Court's workload would have been reduced and the justice dispensed more

Poge 74 ol 75

expeditiously if it were not for some of these glaring misconceptions on the part of Counsel and failure to advise their clients appropriately. ln future, the advocates who disregard the Rules as to service of documents of this court should be held personal to account for the consequences of their decisions and actions by, inter alia, being ordered to personally pay the costs of such applications in accordance with the law. Accordingly, we direct the Registrar of this Court to serve copies of this Ruling onto the Attomey General of Uganda, the Director of the Law Development Centre, the President of the Uganda Law Society and the Secretary of the Law Council so that they can in-turn disseminate it to their respective constituents

³⁹⁰ The Registrar should also post a copy of this Ruling onto the whatsApp Groups of the advocates of this Court and the High Court.

It is so ordered.

, .l

Signed, dated and delivered at Kampala thisJ\*., AP; ²⁰²²

E BETH MUSOKE Justice of Appeal

firr^-\*"" ^

MUZAMIRU MUTANGULA KIBEEDI Justice of APPeal

I

MONICA K. MUGENYI Justice of Appeal

$\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}}$

$\mathbf{L}^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}$