Kabogere Coffee Factory Limited & Another v Kigongo (Civil Application 10 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

The Court held that the merits of an application for extension of time to file a fresh appeal cannot be considered in isolation from the original incompetent appeals where the application's premises consist entirely of the defects that rendered those appeals incompetent. The Rules of the Court do not permit a fresh appeal to be instituted while a previous appeal in the same case is still in existence; the incompetent appeals should first have been withdrawn or struck out. The costs award was justified because the objection substantially succeeded. The reference was dismissed with costs, but the single Judge's order dismissing the applications was set aside and substituted with one striking them out, since applications lacking sufficient reason under Rule 4 should be struck out rather than dismissed.

Outcome

Reference dismissed with costs to the respondent; the single Judge's order dismissing the applications was set aside and substituted with an order striking them out.

Facts

The applicants, originally represented by another firm, filed Civil Appeals Nos. 19 and 20 of 1992 in the Supreme Court arising from Companies Cause No. 7 of 1990 in the High Court, the respondent being the respondent in those appeals. The appeals were set down for hearing in October 1992. On taking over conduct of the matter, new counsel discovered that the appeals appeared incompetent on several grounds, including that they had been instituted by an advocate without a valid practising certificate and that required documents and certificates had been omitted from the records of appeal. Rather than first withdrawing or awaiting the striking out of the incompetent appeals, the applicants filed Civil Applications Nos. 40 and 41 of 1992 seeking extension of time to commence fresh appeals. At the hearing two preliminary objections were taken; one succeeded and the applications were dismissed with costs. The applicants brought the present reference to the full Court against that decision of the single Judge.

Issues

1. Whether an application for extension of time to institute a fresh appeal could properly be entertained while incompetent appeals in the same matter were still pending.
2. Whether the single Judge correctly regarded the applications for extension of time as intended to cure defects in the pending incompetent appeals.
3. Whether the single Judge erred in awarding costs against the applicants where each party had succeeded on one of two equally important issues.

Orders

• Grounds one and two of the reference fail.
• The reference is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
• The order of the single Judge dismissing the applications is set aside and substituted with an order striking them out.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Act 1967 s.17
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.52(c)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.54
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.85(1)(b)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.9

Cases cited (6)

• Opolot v Attorney General of Uganda [1969] EA 496
• Kanse vs ... Supreme Court of Uganda Civil Application No.18 of 19.. (unreported)
• The Executrix of the Estate of the late Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira vs Debora Naukasa Civil Application No. ... (unreported)
• Haji Nurdin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
• Kiboro v Posts and Telecommunications Corporation [1974] EA 155
• Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd. vs. Eddy Rodrighes, Uganda Supreme Court Civil Appeal .../1987 (unreported)

Cases citing this judgment (10)

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.

• Hon Lokeris v Kamol and Anor (Election Petition No. 1 of 2021)
• Lubega v Nanyonga (Civil Application No. 125 of 2015)
• Goodman Agencies Ltd v Hasa Agencies (K) Ltd (Civil Reference 1 of 2011)
• Otim Nape George William v Ebil Fred & Another (Election Petition 17 of 2011)
• A. K. P. M. Lutaaya v Attorney General (Civil Reference 1 of 2007)
• Magezi and Anor v Rupaleria (Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2003)
• Serapio Rukundo v Attorney General (Consitutional Case No. 3 of 1997) followed
• Serapio Rukundo v Attorney General (Constitutional Case No. 3 of 1997) followed
• Prof. Syed Huq v Islamic University in Kampala (Civil Appeal 47 of 1995) distinguished
• Bakunda Darlington v Dr. Kinyatta Stanley and Another (Civil Appeal 27 of 1996)

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