Home › Case law › Francis Rutagarama Bantariza v Habre Intern.Trading co.ltd (Civil Application 14 of 1999)
Francis Rutagarama Bantariza v Habre Intern.Trading co.ltd (Civil Application 14 of 1999)
Legal issues
About this case
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment before relying on it.
Held that Order 21 Rule 9(1) is permissive, so a party selling suit property mid-appeal need not disclose it or substitute the buyer; no abuse of process shown.
Ask Wakilii about this case
Get a cited answer on how Francis Rutagarama Bantariza applies to your facts, grounded in Ugandan statutes and case law.
Research this case →
Source: this page presents Wakilii's issue analysis and metadata for a
publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Judgment text is sourced from the
Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org).
Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.