Asiimwe & 2 Ors v Kiyingi (Civil Applic. No 0130 of 2012)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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
On a reference from the Assistant Registrar to a single Justice of Appeal, the court dismissed the reference. Ground two, alleging contempt for failure to deposit land titles, was withdrawn once it emerged the respondent had transferred the titles to a third party before the order was made. Ground one, that the bill of costs wrongly named five persons instead of three, was untenable because the applicants' own counsel had drawn the appeal and notice of appeal naming five intended appellants. The Assistant Registrar was justified in dismissing the preliminary objection. The reference was found frivolous and an abuse of process and was dismissed with costs.
Outcome
Reference dismissed with costs; Assistant Registrar's dismissal of the preliminary objection upheld.
Facts
The applicants brought a reference to a single Justice of Appeal challenging a decision of the Assistant Registrar concerning a bill of costs. At the hearing, applicants' counsel was absent and the third applicant, himself an advocate, sought an adjournment which was declined for lack of sufficient cause. He was directed to proceed as a party. He argued that the bill of costs was drawn against five persons whereas the case concerned only three, and that the respondent had committed contempt by refusing to deposit certain land titles. The court noted the order directing deposit of the titles was signed on 23 November 2009, after the titles had already been transferred from the respondent to a third party on 14 October 2009, so the respondent could not have deposited them. It also noted that the applicants' own counsel had drawn and filed the appeal and notice of appeal naming five intended appellants. Counsel withdrew the contempt ground.
Issues
- Whether the bill of costs was wrongly drawn against five persons when the case concerned only three parties.
- Whether the respondent committed contempt of court by failing to deposit land titles in compliance with the order.
Orders
- Reference dismissed with costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Court of Appeal Rules Rule 110
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.