Mbabazi and Kinkiizi Bus Service Ltd v Matco Stores Ltd and Another (Civil Application No. 75 of 2000)

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 dismissed as incompetent an application to validate late service of a notice of appeal. It held that once Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1999 was withdrawn by consent and the consent document lodged in the registry, rule 93(3) operated mandatorily to strike the appeal from the list of pending appeals; there was no appeal to resurrect. The Court further held that an applicant seeking an order must cite the law under which the court can grant it, and that although failure to cite a well-known law does not automatically vitiate a motion, here the court could not assume jurisdiction where no enabling law was cited. Both preliminary objections were upheld with costs to the respondents.

Outcome

Application dismissed as incompetent with costs to the respondents

Facts

In High Court Civil Suit No. 933 of 1993, Matco Stores Ltd and Abdul Yusuf succeeded against James Mbabazi and Kinkiizi Bus Service Ltd. The unsuccessful defendants appealed vide Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1999, which was withdrawn by consent of both parties on 30 May 2000 while M/S Lwere & Co. Advocates acted for the appellants. The applicants alleged that at the time of withdrawal the first applicant was committed to civil prison and had not instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal. On 29 September 2000 they instructed new counsel to bring this application, effectively seeking restoration of the withdrawn appeal and validation of the service of a notice of appeal filed 17 August 1999 but served on the respondents on 21 October 1999. The application was brought by Notice of Motion without citing any enabling law. The respondents raised preliminary objections that the appeal had been struck out by operation of law upon consent withdrawal, and that the motion cited no law.

Issues

1. Whether an appeal withdrawn by consent under rule 93(3) can be restored or reinstated.
2. Whether an application brought by Notice of Motion that fails to cite the law under which it is brought is competent.

Orders

• Both preliminary objections upheld.
• Application dismissed as incompetent.
• Costs to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 93(3)

Cases cited (2)

• Polycarp Sekiboobo v Clare Obonyo (Civil Application No. 31 of 1993)
• Joy Tumushabe and Another v Anglo African Limited and Another (Civil Application No. 14 of 1998)

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.

• Mbabazi and Kinkizi Bus Service v Matco Stores Ltd (Reference No. 60 of 2001)

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