Ackah - Yensu (as the trust administrator of non- performing assets recovery trust) v Haji Semakla and Another (Civil Appeal 29 of 2003)

Court of Appeal · [2005] UGCA 85 · 2005 Appeal Withdrawn with Costs ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from a High Court decision; application for adjournment followed by withdrawal of the appeal

Decision

Appeal withdrawn on the appellant's application with costs to the respondent; exhibited properties and documents ordered returned to the respondent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 49 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal initially refused the appellant's application for a further adjournment, having earlier granted two weeks to negotiate a settlement which did not occur, and ordered the appellant to proceed with the appeal. The appellant's counsel then received instructions to withdraw the appeal, praying each party bear its own costs. The court allowed the withdrawal but held the respondent was entitled to costs because he had been brought to court by the appellant who chose to withdraw. The court also ordered that the respondent's properties, titles and documents exhibited in court be returned to him.

Facts

The appellant, Trust Administrator of the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust, appealed against a High Court decision of Justice Okumu Wengi dated 28 October 2002 concerning a long-standing dispute with the respondents. When the appeal came up for hearing on 5 May 2005, the court adjourned it to 18 May 2005 to allow the parties to explore settlement, giving the appellant two weeks to negotiate. No settlement was reached. On the adjourned date, the appellant's counsel sought a further adjournment to consult the Board for instructions, while intimating that, following a directive from the Minister of State for Finance (whose letter was on the court record), the appellant intended to withdraw the appeal. The respondent's counsel opposed the adjournment. The court refused the adjournment and ordered the appeal to proceed, after which the appellant's counsel obtained instructions to withdraw the appeal.

Issues

Whether the appellant should be granted a further adjournment to seek instructions on settlement.
Whether the appeal should be withdrawn and, if so, who should bear the costs.

Orders

Application for adjournment refused; appellant ordered to proceed with the appeal.
On the appellant's application, the appeal is withdrawn.
Respondent awarded costs of the appeal.
Properties and documents exhibited in court to be returned to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Refusal where time previously granted not utilised

A court may refuse a further adjournment where it has already granted time to negotiate a settlement and that time has not been used, particularly where the party offers only an uncertain promise of future action.

Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of Appeal — Costs

Where an appellant withdraws an appeal, the respondent is ordinarily entitled to costs because he was brought to court by the appellant who elected to withdraw, and a prayer that each party bear its own costs lacks justification absent special circumstances.

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.