Wakilii

Francis Rutagarama Bantariza v Habre Intern.Trading co.ltd (Civil Application 14 of 1999)

Supreme Court · [2000] UGSC 4 · 2000 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court to set aside or vary its earlier judgment as to costs, arising from Civil Appeal No. 399
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent; the court's earlier judgments and costs award stand

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 dismissed an application to set aside or vary its costs award on the ground that the respondent had sold the suit property during the appeals without disclosure. It held that Order 21 Rule 9(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules is permissive: a devolution of interest during proceedings does not abate the suit, and a party need not disclose a transfer or have the transferee substituted; the original party may continue. The respondent was therefore entitled to resist the appeal in the Court of Appeal and to appeal to the Supreme Court in its own name. No abuse of process was shown, and the award of costs alone was no basis to revise the judgments.

Facts

The applicant had sued the respondent in the High Court to evict it from the suit land as a trespasser. In November 1995 the High Court dismissed the suit and awarded costs against the applicant. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal, and the respondent then appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided in the respondent's favour with costs. The applicant later brought this application contending that the respondent had sold and transferred its interest in the suit land to one Bagalaliwo during the pendency of the appeals, without disclosing the sale to either court, and that the respondent thereby lacked locus standi and abused the process of court while still recovering costs. It was not disclosed when exactly the respondent disposed of the property, and no court had made an order forbidding such disposal.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent was entitled to oppose the appeal in the Court of Appeal after allegedly selling the suit property during the pendency of proceedings.
  2. Whether the respondent was justified in appealing to the Supreme Court after losing in the Court of Appeal.
  3. Whether the applicant established abuse of the process of court justifying depriving the respondent of the costs awarded to it.
  4. Whether Order 21 Rule 9(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules required the respondent to disclose the transfer or to have the purchaser substituted as a party.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Devolution of Interest Pendente Lite — Order 21 Rule 9(1) is Permissive
Where an interest in the subject matter of a suit is assigned or devolves during the pendency of proceedings, Order 21 Rule 9(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules permits, but does not compel, the suit to be continued by or against the transferee; the original party may continue the proceedings, and the transferee is bound by or takes the benefit of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Effect of Sale of Suit Property During Appeal — No Duty to Disclose or Substitute
A party who transfers its interest in the suit property during the pendency of an appeal is not required by Order 21 Rule 9(1) to disclose the transfer or to apply for the transferee to be substituted, and may continue to prosecute or resist the appeal in its own name.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action Assessed at Commencement — Effect of Subsequent Events on Appeal
A suit is tried at all stages on the cause of action as it existed at the date of commencement, and on appeal the question is whether the trial court's decision was correct on the facts as they stood at judgment; an appellate court may take notice of subsequent events only exceptionally, where the original relief has become inappropriate or it is necessary to shorten litigation or do justice between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Award of Costs No Basis to Revise Judgment
The award of costs to a successful party is not, by itself, a basis upon which the court will exercise its inherent power to revise or vary its own judgments where no abuse of the process of court has been established.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature Statute 1996 s.8
  • Civil Procedure Act s.101
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.1(3)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.41
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.29(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.21 r.9(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.21 r.4

Cases cited (2)

  • Sheokumar v Central Coop. Bank AIR 34 (1974) Patna 477
  • Gajender Pal v Ram B. Sirdaw (1961) EA 344
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.