Wakilii

Shirima v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and Others (Appeal 3 of 2017)

East African Court of Justice · [2018] EACJ 49 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for reinstatement of dismissed appeal
Decision
Application dismissed with costs and bar on further applications in this matter

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 dismissed the application for reinstatement with costs. The application was misconceived because the original appeal was dismissed for abuse of court process under Rule 1(2), not for non-appearance under Rule 107(1). The applicant's failure to serve all respondents and failure to appear at the scheduling conference constituted further abuse of process. The Court directed that no further applications relating to this matter shall be entertained.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs and bar on further applications in this matter

Facts

On 15 February 2018, the Court dismissed Appeal No. 3 of 2017 for abuse of court process under Rule 1(2). On 5 March 2018, the appellant's advocate filed a notice of motion seeking reinstatement of the appeal to be heard on merits under Rules 107(2) and 1(2). The motion was scheduled for a scheduling conference on 9 May 2018. At the conference, neither the applicant nor his advocate appeared. All respondents except South Sudan appeared through counsel. Counsel for all respondents except Uganda complained they had not been served with the application. All counsel requested dismissal with costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for reinstatement of Appeal No. 3 of 2017 should be granted.
  2. Whether the applicant's conduct constituted abuse of court process.

Orders

  • Application dated 5th March 2018 dismissed with costs.
  • Application dismissed as being an abuse of court process.
  • No further application relating to this matter shall be entertained at the Registry.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Applications for Reinstatement — Proper Grounds
An application for reinstatement of an appeal under Rule 107(2) is misconceived where the appeal was dismissed for abuse of court process under Rule 1(2) rather than for non-appearance under Rule 107(1).
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Failure to Serve and Appear
Filing an application but failing to serve it on all respondents and failing to appear personally or through an advocate at the scheduling conference constitutes abuse of court process.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Public Interest Litigation — Repeated Abuse
Although a court would not ordinarily award costs against a person litigating in the public interest, repeated abuse of court process justifies the exercise of discretion to award costs against such a litigant.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Shirima v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and Others (Appeal 3 of 2017) [2018] EACJ 49 (9 May 2018)
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.