Wakilii

Samwili Kibuuka v Eriya Lugeya Lubanga (Civil Appeal No 211 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 2121 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal called for hearing; respondent applied for dismissal for want of prosecution following the appellant's non-appearance
Decision
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution 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 respondent applied to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution under Rule 100(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the appellant and his advocates being absent at the hearing despite service. The court found that the appellant's advocates remained on record and had been duly served per the affidavit of service, yet neither they nor the appellant attended or explained their absence. The court inferred the appellant had lost interest in the appeal, which had been filed in 2013 and not prosecuted. The appeal was accordingly dismissed for lack of prosecution, with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent

Facts

The original suit came before court in 2001 and the appeal was filed in 2013. When the appeal was called for hearing on 12 November 2019, counsel for the respondent appeared but the appellant and his advocates were absent. According to an affidavit of service dated 12 November 2019 sworn by Kyambadde Ali, service was effected on 11 October 2019 on the appellant's advocates, who refused to receive it claiming they had lost instructions and lost contact with their client. The court noted that those advocates remained on record for the appellant and had not indicated to court why they were not present. The respondent, though sick, had sent his two sons, and counsel submitted the matter had been in court for a long time.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution where the appellant and his counsel failed to appear after being served.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 211 of 2013 dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Appellant to pay costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Rule 100(1) Court of Appeal Rules
Where an appellant and his advocates, who remain on record and have been duly served, fail to appear at the hearing of the appeal and offer no explanation, the court may infer that the appellant has lost interest and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution under Rule 100(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Advocates on Record — Effect of Service Despite Loss of Instructions
Advocates who are on record for a party remain so until properly discharged; service effected on such advocates binds the party even where the advocates claim to have lost instructions and contact with the client.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Court of Appeal Rules (Judicature) r.100(1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Samwili Kibuuka v Eriya Lugeya Lubanga (Civil Appeal No 211 of 2013) [2019] UGCA 2121 (27 November 2019)
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.