Wakilii

Muhenda Mtlton v Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2011)

Court of Appeal · [2016] UGCA 97 · 2016 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment; ruling on an application for adjournment and competence of the appeal
Decision
Appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal refused the appellant's application for an adjournment, holding that a party seeking an adjournment must demonstrate sufficient cause, which the appellant failed to do despite an earlier undertaking to file a supplementary record. The Court further held that the appeal was incompetent because the record of appeal was incomplete and uncertified, contrary to Rule 87 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal, which requires a complete and certified lower court record. There being nothing to adjourn, the appeal was struck out with costs.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent

Facts

The appellant filed a civil appeal against a High Court judgment delivered on 3 August 2010 in Civil Suit No. 730 of 2005. When the appeal came up for hearing on 27 July 2015, the Court noted that the record of appeal was incomplete, lacking lower court exhibits and parts of the record relating to the testimonies of some witnesses. The Court nonetheless permitted the appellant to proceed on condition that a supplementary record would be filed before the next hearing. At the subsequent hearing, the appellant's counsel conceded that no supplementary record had been filed and sought an adjournment to enable him to file it. He provided no reason for the failure to comply with the Court's order since 27 July 2015. The respondent opposed the application on the ground that the appeal was incompetent.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause to be granted an adjournment.
  2. Whether the appeal was competent given an incomplete record of appeal contrary to Rule 87.

Orders

  • Application for adjournment refused.
  • Appeal struck out with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Requirement of Sufficient Cause
A party who seeks an adjournment must provide sufficient cause; where no sufficient cause is shown, the application for adjournment will be refused.
Civil Procedure — Record of Appeal — Competence — Rule 87 Court of Appeal Rules
An appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out where the record of appeal is incomplete and uncertified, contrary to Rule 87 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal, which requires the record to contain a complete and certified lower court record.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.87

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muhenda Mtlton v Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2011) [2016] UGCA 97 (9 May 2016)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.