Mubezi James & 2 Ors v Uganda [2018] UGSC 14

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 Supreme Court found that a full bench had earlier struck out the appellants' Notice of Appeal and the appeal for late service and failure to seek an extension of time. Parties subsequently filed, and a single judge endorsed, a consent order extending time, on the basis of which Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 was listed for hearing. The Court held it was irregular for parties to consent on a matter already determined, and that a consent order endorsed by a single judge could not overturn the orders of a full bench. The fresh appeal was a disguised attempt to revive the struck-out appeal and was dismissed as incompetently placed before the Court, with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as incompetently placed before the Court

Facts

A full bench of the Supreme Court, in Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2015, struck out the appellants' Notice of Appeal together with the appeal, finding no plausible explanation for failing to serve the Notice of Appeal within time and no application for extension of time. Thereafter the second appellant filed applications for stay of execution, for an interim order, for extension of time, and for validation of the Notice and Memorandum of Appeal. The parties' counsel agreed to a consent order extending the time within which to file and serve the Notice of Appeal, with costs of the application to abide the main appeal. On 13 September 2017 a single judge endorsed the consent order, and Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 was fixed for hearing on 3 October 2017. While writing judgment, the Court discovered these irregularities in the filing and cause-listing of the appeal.

Issues

1. Whether parties can validly enter a consent order in respect of an appeal that a full bench of the Court has already struck out.
2. Whether a consent order endorsed by a single judge can overturn the orders of a full bench of the Court.
3. Whether Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 was competently placed before the Court.

Orders

• Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 dismissed as having been incompetently placed before the Court.
• No order as to costs.

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.

• Oonyu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2016)

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