(An appeal arising from the judgement of Hon. TA Madowo, Senior Resident Magistrate, SRM, delivered on 30th September 2022, in Busia CMCCC No. 196 of 2020)
1. I delivered a judgement in this appeal on 26th March 2025, where I allowed the appeal. The appeal turned on two issues, the awards made with respect to loss of dependency and special damage. The appeal was successful, only on loss of dependency, for the appellant had dropped its case on the award of special damages.
2. After the delivery of the judgement, the respondents wrote a letter to court, dated 10th April 2025, addressed to the Deputy Registrar, seeking clarification on the awards of the trial court that were set aside, and the ones left intact. After that letter, the respondents also lodged a notice of appeal at the registry, dated 13th April 2025, and received by the Deputy Registrar on 28th April 2025.
3. Oblivious of the fact that the respondents had filed a notice of appeal, after the letter of 10th April 2025 was brought to my attention, I directed that the file be placed before me for mention. That was done, on 12th May 2025, and the Advocates for both sides addressed me, on the letter of 10th April 2025.
4. I will not go into the issues raised in those addresses, given that the decision is being appealed. As the respondents evince an intention to appeal, let them move to the Court of Appeal, if they are not satisfied with the judgement, for that would be the proper thing to do. The High Court is now functus officio on the matter. It is not proper for a party to engage the Court of Appeal and the High Court, at the same time, on a judgement delivered by the High Court. A party should not have it both ways.
5. The practice of writing letters to court, to ask the court to explain a judgement or ruling, should be decried. Upon delivering a judgement, a court becomes functus officio, and no explanation, by that court, should be required, of the content of the judgement or the decision thereof. The dissatisfied or aggrieved party moves on to the appellate court, to obtain a second opinion of an expanded bench, or files a formal application for review before the trial court.
6. Litigation ought not be conducted through correspondence. Rather it should be by filing pleadings, which are then served on the other side, and the matters are subjected to adjudication thereafter, by the court vested with the appropriate jurisdiction, after hearing both sides.
7. I trust that the parties shall be guided appropriately.
DELIVERED VIA EMAIL, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT BUSIA, THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025.
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE
Mr. Arthur Etyang, Court Assistant, Busia.
Advocates
Mr. Mata, instructed by LG Menezes & Company, Advocates for the appellant.
Ms. Achala, instructed by Abalo & Company, Advocates for the respondents.
1. I delivered a judgement in this appeal on 26th March 2025, where I allowed the appeal. The appeal turned on two issues, the awards made with respect to loss of dependency and special damage. The appeal was successful, only on loss of dependency, for the appellant had dropped its case on the award of special damages.
2. After the delivery of the judgement, the respondents wrote a letter to court, dated 10th April 2025, addressed to the Deputy Registrar, seeking clarification on the awards of the trial court that were set aside, and the ones left intact. After that letter, the respondents also lodged a notice of appeal at the registry, dated 13th April 2025, and received by the Deputy Registrar on 28th April 2025.
3. Oblivious of the fact that the respondents had filed a notice of appeal, after the letter of 10th April 2025 was brought to my attention, I directed that the file be placed before me for mention. That was done, on 12th May 2025, and the Advocates for both sides addressed me, on the letter of 10th April 2025.
4. I will not go into the issues raised in those addresses, given that the decision is being appealed. As the respondents evince an intention to appeal, let them move to the Court of Appeal, if they are not satisfied with the judgement, for that would be the proper thing to do. The High Court is now functus officio on the matter. It is not proper for a party to engage the Court of Appeal and the High Court, at the same time, on a judgement delivered by the High Court. A party should not have it both ways.
5. The practice of writing letters to court, to ask the court to explain a judgement or ruling, should be decried. Upon delivering a judgement, a court becomes functus officio, and no explanation, by that court, should be required, of the content of the judgement or the decision thereof. The dissatisfied or aggrieved party moves on to the appellate court, to obtain a second opinion of an expanded bench, or files a formal application for review before the trial court.
6. Litigation ought not be conducted through correspondence. Rather it should be by filing pleadings, which are then served on the other side, and the matters are subjected to adjudication thereafter, by the court vested with the appropriate jurisdiction, after hearing both sides.
7. I trust that the parties shall be guided appropriately.
DELIVERED VIA EMAIL, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT BUSIA, THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025.
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE
Mr. Arthur Etyang, Court Assistant, Busia.
Advocates
Mr. Mata, instructed by LG Menezes & Company, Advocates for the appellant.
Ms. Achala, instructed by Abalo & Company, Advocates for the respondents.