Yahaya Kiriisa v Attorney General and Another (Civil Appeal 7 of 1994)

Supreme Court · [1994] UGSC 50 · 1994 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Appeal to the Supreme Court against a High Court ruling dismissing a statutory appeal for want of prosecution

Decision

Appeal allowed; dismissal for want of prosecution set aside and the statutory appeal remitted to the High Court for hearing on its merits before another judge

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 Supreme Court held that the High Court did not exercise its discretion judiciously when it refused an adjournment and dismissed the appellant's statutory appeal for want of prosecution. Lead counsel was genuinely ill; absent contrary evidence the trial judge should have accepted counsel's statement from the bar, and it was wrong to force a junior advocate holding only a brief to argue an unprepared, complex constitutional matter. The earlier adjournments were taken for good reasons largely to pursue an out-of-court settlement and were not deliberate delay, and the appellant was an aggrieved party with an interest in the property. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for hearing on its merits before another judge.

Facts

The second respondent was granted a certificate of repossession of Kampala property by the Minister of Finance under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. The appellant, claiming to be the registered proprietor who had never divested the property, lodged a statutory appeal in the High Court challenging the certificate as unconstitutional. The appeal was adjourned on several occasions, largely to allow the appellant to resolve differences with his counsel and to permit the parties to pursue an out-of-court settlement and compensation negotiations. When the matter came up on 16 December 1993, lead counsel Prof. Sempebwa was indisposed with gout, and Mr. Serwanga, holding his brief, sought an adjournment. The trial judge refused, finding no medical evidence and considering the junior counsel competent to argue the appeal, then dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution after the appellant declined to proceed. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the trial judge exercised her discretion judiciously in refusing the appellant's application for an adjournment and dismissing his appeal for want of prosecution.

Orders

Appeal allowed.
Ruling and order of Byamugisha, J. set aside.
Appeal remitted to the High Court for hearing on its merits by another judge.
Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Exercise of Judicial Discretion — Appellate Interference

The grant or refusal of an adjournment lies in the discretion of the trial court, which must be exercised judiciously, and an appellate court will not interfere unless the discretion was not exercised judiciously.

Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Counsel's Illness — Statement from the Bar

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a court should accept a statement made from the bar that counsel having personal conduct of the case is ill; if it doubts the statement it should direct that medical evidence be produced rather than refuse the adjournment outright.

Civil Procedure — Right to Representation — Compelling Unprepared Counsel

It is improper to compel an advocate to argue a matter for which he is ill prepared or unprepared, as doing so would amount to a negation of justice to his client.

Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Whether Delay Deliberate

Where adjournments were sought for good reasons appreciated by the court and opposing counsel, including to pursue settlement, they do not constitute a deliberate attempt to delay, and dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution is not justified.

Legislation cited (1)

Expropriated Properties Act 1982

Cases cited (1)

Nitin Jayant Madhvani v East African Holdings Ltd and 5 Others (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1993)

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.