Wakilii

Yahaya Kiriisa v Attorney General and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994)

Supreme Court · [1994] UGSC 58 · 1994 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal to the Supreme Court from a High Court order dismissing a statutory appeal for want of prosecution
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court ruling and order set aside; matter remitted to the High Court for hearing on its merits before another judge

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 Supreme Court held that the High Court did not exercise its discretion judicially in refusing an adjournment and dismissing the appellant's statutory appeal for want of prosecution. Counsel's statement from the bar that lead counsel was ill with gout should have been accepted absent contrary evidence; a court cannot compel an unprepared advocate to argue a case; the prior adjournments were justified, being aimed largely at an out-of-court settlement; and the appellant, as registered proprietor seeking possession, was an aggrieved party with no reason to delay. The appeal was allowed, the ruling and order set aside, and the matter remitted to the High Court for hearing on its merits before another judge, with costs to the appellant.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court ruling and order set aside; matter remitted to the High Court for hearing on its merits before another judge

Facts

The second respondent obtained a certificate of repossession over property in Kampala from the Minister of Finance under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. The appellant, the registered proprietor who contended the property had never divested from him, lodged a statutory appeal in the High Court challenging the certificate and asserting the Act was unconstitutional. The appeal was adjourned several times over 1992-1993: once to allow the appellant to resolve a disagreement with his counsel, and the others largely to pursue an out-of-court settlement involving the Attorney General and the Custodian Board. On the final hearing date, lead counsel Prof. Sempebwa was absent, said to be ill with gout; the advocate holding his brief sought an adjournment, which the trial judge refused, before dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge exercised her discretion judicially in refusing an adjournment and dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.
  2. Whether the appellant was an aggrieved party within the meaning of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Ruling and order of Byamugisha, J. set aside.
  • Appeal remitted to the High Court for hearing on its merits by another judge.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Adjournment — Exercise of judicial discretion
The discretion of a trial court to grant or refuse an adjournment must be exercised judicially, and an appellate court will interfere with that exercise where the discretion has not been exercised judicially.
Civil Procedure — Adjournment — Absence of counsel through illness
Where counsel informs the court from the bar that the advocate having conduct of a case is ill, the court should, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, accept that statement as true or direct that medical evidence be produced, rather than refuse an adjournment.
Civil Procedure — Conduct of hearing — Compelling unprepared counsel
A court cannot properly force an advocate who is ill prepared or unprepared to argue a matter, as doing so would be a negation of justice to his client.
Land & Property — Expropriated Properties Act 1982 — Aggrieved party
To qualify as an aggrieved party under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 a person must have an interest in rem in the property; a registered proprietor who contends the property never divested from him is an aggrieved party within the meaning of the Act.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Nitin Jayant Madhvani v East African Holdings Ltd and 5 Others (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Yahaya Kiriisa v Attorney General and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994) [1994] UGSC 58 (21 November 1994)
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.