Wakilii

Were v Sewanyana and Another (miscellaneous Application No. 232 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2017] UGCA 146 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for a certificate of urgency to fix a substantive civil appeal for hearing during court vacation, arising from Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2013
Decision
Application dismissed as misconceived; file directed to be placed before the Deputy Chief Justice for assignment

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 applicant sought a certificate of urgency to have a long-pending substantive appeal heard during court vacation, citing alleged fraudulent activities in the company and imminent execution proceedings. The court held there was no authority supporting the proposition that a certificate of urgency could lead to a panel being formed and an appeal being heard during vacation. Rule 21(2) allows little business during vacation unless directed by the Chief Justice or shown to be urgent, and 'urgent' refers to matters needing attention pending resumption of regular business. Hearing a substantive appeal requires a sitting determined by the Deputy Chief Justice under Rule 20, not a vacation Justice. The application was dismissed as misconceived.

Outcome

Application dismissed as misconceived; file directed to be placed before the Deputy Chief Justice for assignment

Facts

The applicant had a civil appeal (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2013) pending in the Court of Appeal, the underlying dispute having originated from HCCS 719 of 2007 and thus having been in the courts for a long time. The applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking a certificate of urgency to have the substantive appeal fixed for hearing during court vacation. Counsel argued urgency on the grounds that fraudulent activities were occurring within the company, particularly in the company registry, and that execution proceedings were about to commence at the High Court. The application did not seek to maintain the status quo but rather to progress the hearing of the appeal during the vacation period.

Issues

  1. Whether a certificate of urgency can be granted to constitute a panel and fix a substantive appeal for hearing during court vacation.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • The Registrar of the court to place the file before the Deputy Chief Justice to evaluate and assign accordingly given its age.

Rules and key headnotes

Court of Appeal Practice — Certificate of Urgency — Hearing during court vacation
A certificate of urgency cannot be used to constitute a panel and fix a substantive appeal for hearing during court vacation; there is no authority supporting such a course.
Court of Appeal Practice — Court vacation — Meaning of urgency under Rule 21(2)
Rule 21(2) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal permits little business during court vacation unless directed by the Chief Justice or shown to be urgent; urgency refers to a situation needing attention pending the resumption of the court's regular business, not the hearing of a substantive appeal.
Court of Appeal Practice — Sittings — Determination under Rule 20
Under Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal, sittings of the court are determined by the Deputy Chief Justice and not by a vacation Justice, and hearing a substantive appeal requires such a sitting.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 21(2)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 20

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Were v Sewanyana and Another (miscellaneous Application No. 232 of 2017) [2017] UGCA 146 (14 August 2017)
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.