UMEME Limited v Tirwomwe (Civil Appeal 208 of 2016)

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.

Holding

On the respondent's application, the Court of Appeal dismissed UMEME's appeal for failure to prosecute. The appellant repeatedly ignored multiple Registrar directions over more than two and a half years to file conferencing notes, filing written arguments only on the morning of the hearing. The Court held that scheduling and the filing of conferencing notes have become a procedural rule reflecting a party's seriousness in progressing a matter, and that the appellant's continuous non-compliance manifested dilatory conduct aimed at denying the successful party the fruits of its judgment. Distinguishing Security Group v Marie Stopes as an exceptional and more disquieting situation, the Court dismissed the appeal under Rule 2(2) with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent sued UMEME in the High Court for trespass after the appellant's agents erected four high-voltage electricity poles on part of his land at Kashari, Mbarara in 2004 without consent, and delayed an agreed diversion of the lines until July 2011. In April 2016 the trial judge found trespass and awarded the respondent UGX 203,000,000 in special damages, UGX 780,000 for a valuation report, UGX 5,000,000 in general damages, and interest at 8% per annum. UMEME appealed in 2016. The Registrar repeatedly directed the appellant to file conferencing notes in May, September and October 2019, January 2020 and November 2021, but the appellant did not comply, prompting the Acting Assistant Registrar to record the appellant's failure to respond. The appellant filed written arguments only on 31 July 2024, the day of the hearing. The respondent applied to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute, and counsel for the appellant offered no justifiable reason for the delay.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant's persistent failure to file conferencing notes and the inordinate delay in prosecuting the appeal warranted dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs of the appeal and of the court below awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.2(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.82
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 12

Cases cited (2)

• Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Forkina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2001)
• Security Group (U) Ltd v Marie Stopes (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 156 of 2013)

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