Mubeezi & 2 Ors v Kasule (Civil Appeal 10 of 2017)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Holding

The Court, having earlier struck out the appellants' Notice of Appeal and appeal through a full bench, found it irregular for the parties to subsequently consent to extend time and validate the Notice of Appeal in respect of a matter already finally determined. A consent order endorsed by a single judge could not overturn the orders of the full bench. Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 was held to be a disguised attempt to have the struck-out appeal heard and was dismissed as having been incompetently placed before the Court, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The respondent had earlier applied (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2015) to strike out the appellants' Notice of Appeal for late service. A full bench found no plausible explanation for the late service and that the appellants had not sought an extension of time, and struck out both the Notice of Appeal and the appeal. The second appellant later filed further applications for stay of execution, extension of time and validation of the Notice and Memorandum of Appeal. The parties' counsel agreed to file a consent order extending time to file and serve the Notice of Appeal, with costs in the main appeal. A single judge endorsed the consent order on 13 September 2017, and the appeal was relisted as Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 and heard on 3 October 2017. While writing judgment, the Court discovered these irregularities in the filing and cause-listing of the matter that had already been finally determined.

Issues

1. Whether parties may, by a consent order endorsed by a single judge, revive a Notice of Appeal and appeal that a full bench of the Court had already struck out.
2. Whether Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 was competently before the Court.

Orders

• Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 dismissed as having been incompetently placed before the Court.
• No order as to costs.

Key headnotes