G.M Combined Limited v Inam (Civil Appeal 38 of 1993)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On an application to adjourn a civil appeal, the Supreme Court declined to grant a third adjournment. The appeal had previously been adjourned twice because of an unresolved dispute over which set of advocates represented the appellant company, one set acting for the company in receivership and the other for the company itself. Counsel briefed to seek a further adjournment relied on a ground (that the appeal had been adjourned pending finalisation of related High Court suits) that was not borne out by the record. As counsel was not prepared to prosecute the appeal, the court accepted the respondent's submission and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Facts

When the appeal first came up for hearing on 21 September 1994, there was a dispute as to who represented the appellant. Two sets of advocates appeared: one set (Mubiru Kalenge and Bwairka) for the appellant company in receivership, and another set (Kavuma Kalenge and Mbabazi) for the company. The appeal was adjourned for that matter to be sorted out. On 5 December 1994 both sets of lawyers again appeared, the matter remained unresolved, and the appeal was adjourned a second time. At the present hearing neither set of lawyers turned up; instead counsel briefed Mr. Serabulya to seek a further adjournment on the basis that the court had ordered the appeal adjourned pending finalisation of two related High Court suits involving the appellant. The court found this ground was not borne out by the record.

Issues

1. Whether the court should grant a third adjournment of the appeal.
2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution where counsel sought adjournment on grounds not borne out by the record and was not prepared to prosecute the appeal.

Orders

• Application for a third adjournment refused.
• Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
• Costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• AK Detergents v GM Combined (U) Limited (Civil Suit 348 of 1994)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.