Court name
Supreme Court of Uganda
Judgment date
7 January 2011

Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Jonathan Kalemera Edson (Civil Application-2010/24) [2011] UGSC 6 (07 January 2011);

Cite this case
[2011] UGSC 6

 

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA
AT KAMPALA


[CORAM: TSEKOOKO, JSC   SINGLE JSC]

Civil Application No. 24 of 2010


KASAALA GROWERS BETWEEN
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT
AND
                         1. KAKOOZA 1.JONATHAN
2.KALEMERA EDSON   ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS


{Application Arising From Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2010 and Judgment of Court of
Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2007 dated 6th February, 2009}

Civil Application-Leave to file memorandum and record of Appeal out of time


RULING OF TSEKOOKO, JSC
 
NOTICE OF MOTION

By notice of motion the applicant seeks for leave to file its memorandum and record of appeal out of time. This matter has an interesting background. Kakooza Jonathan (1st Respondent) and Kalemera Edson (2nd Respondent) unsuccessfully sued Kasaala Growers Cooperative Society (Applicant) in the High Court. The Court of Appeal on 06th February, 2009, allowed the appeal against the decision of the High Court. The Applicants lodged a notice of appeal on 16th February, 2009 intending to appeal against that decision of the Court of Appeal. That notice was lodged by the applicant itself through its agent. The notice of appeal was apparently lodged in the Court in the manner prescribed by the Rules of this Court.

1ST ADVOCATES ROLE

Subsequently, the applicant engaged Messrs. Tibaijuka & Co. Advocates, who also lodged another notice of Appeal in the same Court of Appeal on 20th February, 2009 on the assumption that no other notice had been lodged. Thereafter, there seems to have been a misunderstanding between the applicant and the said advocates who did not take any further steps to institute the intended appeal. Mr. Tibaijuka, an advocate in the firm, has explained in his affidavit in some detail why he drew the second notice of appeal. He did not institute the intended appeal basically because the applicant did not pay his fees.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2010 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2010

It is apparent that by early September, 2009, the applicant had failed to persuade Mr. Tibaijuka to pursue its appeal. Consequently, the applicant engaged another firm of advocates; Ambrose Tebyasa & Co. advocates, to take steps to institute the appeal. So on 3rd and 7th September, 2009, the applicant paid that firm of the new advocates Shs.1,000,000/= and Shs.500,000/=. Receipts for the payments were issued. They are now AnnextureF” to Mumbakali