Wakilii

Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd and Another v Reamaton Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 66 · 1998 Application Dismissed; Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for adjournment of a civil appeal in the Court of Appeal to enable counsel to argue an application for leave to file notice of appeal out of time.
Decision
Adjournment refused and the purported 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 declined to grant an adjournment of the appeal, holding that there was no competent appeal before it to adjourn. The notice of appeal, which commences an appeal, had already been struck out on 1 July 1998, and without a notice of appeal there can be no appeal. The court accordingly struck out the purported appeal as incompetent and awarded costs to the respondent in both the Court of Appeal and the court below.

Outcome

Adjournment refused and the purported appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent.

Facts

Counsel for the appellants applied for an adjournment of the civil appeal to enable him to argue an application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time. Counsel for the respondent opposed the adjournment, contending that there was no competent appeal before the court because the notice of appeal had been struck out by the Court of Appeal on 1 July 1998. The respondent relied on the authority of Haji Nurdin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka and sought to have the appeal struck out under rules 81 and 101(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether an adjournment could be granted where the notice of appeal had already been struck out.
  2. Whether there was a competent appeal before the court capable of being adjourned.

Orders

  • Application for an adjournment of the appeal declined.
  • Purported appeal struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs to the respondent in this court and the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal as the Foundation of an Appeal
An appeal is commenced by a notice of appeal, without which there can be no appeal; where the notice of appeal has been struck out, no competent appeal exists.
Civil Procedure — Adjournment — Incompetent Appeal
An application to adjourn an appeal is devoid of merit where there is no competent appeal before the court to be adjourned.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Court of Appeal Rules r.81
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.101(b)

Cases cited (1)

  • Haji Nurdin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd and Another v Reamaton Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998) [1998] UGCA 66 (31 July 1998)
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.