G.M Combined Limited v Inam (Civil Appeal 38 of 1993) [1995] UGSC 31 (14 March 1995)

## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA

AT MENGO

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 38 OF 1993

BETWEEN

G. M. COMBINE LIMITED ................ ....... APPELLANT A N D

INAM UL HAQ PAUL .......................... RESPONDENT

## RULING

This is an application for an adjournment on the ground that on the $5/12/94$ this court made an order to the effect that this appeal will remain adjourned until finalisation in the High Court of two cases in which the appellant is in party. The cases are G. M. Combined Ltd. Vs. Uganda Development Bank and others HCCS No. 151/94 and G. M Combined Ltd V. A. K. Detergents HCCS No. 384/94. The application was agued by Mr. Senabulya holding brief for M/s. Mubiru Kalenge and Bwanika who represented the Appellant company in receiveship.

The application was opposed by Mr. Lubega Matovu for the respondent.

According to the record, when this appeal came up for hearing on 21/9/94. There was a dispute as to who represented the appellant. Two sets of advocates appeared Mubiru Kalenge and Bwanika for the appellant company and Kavuma Kabenge and Mbabazi. The first set represented the Company in receivership and the second set represented the company. The appeal was adjourned for this matter to be sorted out.

On the $5/12/94$ the two sets of lawyers again appeared and the matter had not been resolved and the appeal was

$.../2$

again adjourned as before. There was no order to adjourn the appeal till finalisation of any cases in the High Court.

The two sets of lawyers did not appear but Kalenge and Bwanika briefed Mr. Senabulya to apply an adjournment on a ground which is not borne out by the record. There may well the be a dispute between the company and Receivers, Hr. counsel should have raised these matters on the last two occasions, and should have been before the court to argue these matters.

This court is not prepared to grant an adjournment for the third time for the same reasons. / Mr. Senabulya is not prepared to prosecute the appeal, we accordingly accept Mr. Matovu's submission that this appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution. Costs to the respondent.

> S. W. W. WAMBUZI CHIEF JUSTICE

A. H. O. ODER OF THE COURT ST

J. W. N. TSEKOOKO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF

DATED 14/3/95.