Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited v Eddy Rodrigues (Civil Appeal 5 of 1987)

Court of Appeal · [1987] UGCA 6 · 1987 Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Interlocutory civil appeal from a High Court ruling dismissing a preliminary objection on jurisdiction, with leave to appeal

Decision

Appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is 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 Court of Appeal struck out the appeal as incompetent. It held that a supplementary record of appeal under r.89 may only contain further or additional documents, and cannot be used to introduce a basic document omitted from the original record required by r.85. The notice of appeal had been filed one day out of time, contrary to r.74(2), without leave to extend time, rendering the appeal incompetent. Additionally, neither the order appealed against nor the order granting leave had been extracted and filed as required by r.85(1), a substantive defect that cannot be waived. The appeal was struck out with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The respondent operated an account with the appellant bank. On 13 October 1985 he issued a cheque for Shs.85,000,000 in favour of the British High Commission as the purchase price for property at Plot 17 Princess Anne Drive, Kampala, owned by the Commission; the cheque was paid and his account debited. On 27 November 1985, on the Commission's instructions, the bank credited the same amount back to the respondent's account. The respondent instructed the bank to debit his account and refund the money to the Commission, but the bank refused. The bank denied liability and raised a preliminary objection that the suit could not proceed because doing so would implead the Government of the United Kingdom, which enjoyed diplomatic immunity. The trial judge overruled the objection. The bank obtained leave to appeal and filed this appeal, which was challenged for being filed out of time and for failing to extract the relevant orders.

Issues

Whether an omitted basic document required by r.85 could be introduced into the record of appeal by way of a supplementary record under r.89.
Whether the appeal was competent where the notice of appeal was filed out of time without leave.
Whether the appeal was competent where the order appealed against and the order granting leave were not extracted and filed.

Orders

Application to introduce the omitted document (Exh. D.1) into the record of appeal rejected.
Preliminary objection upheld.
Appeal struck out as incompetent.
Costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Supplementary Record of Appeal — Scope under Rule 89

A supplementary record of appeal under r.89 may contain only further or additional documents required for the proper determination of an appeal; it cannot be used to introduce a basic document omitted from the original record of appeal required by r.85.

Civil Procedure — Notice of Appeal — Time Limits and Computation

A notice of appeal must be lodged within fourteen days of the decision appealed against under r.74(2), and where it is filed out of time without leave to extend time, the appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out.

Civil Procedure — Competence of Appeal — Extraction of Decree or Order

No appeal is competent until the formal decree or order embodying the decision complained of has been extracted and filed; this is a substantive requirement, not merely procedural, and the defect cannot be waived.

Legislation cited (7)

Rules of the Court of Appeal r.74(2)
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.85(1)(a)
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.85(1)(f)
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.85(1)(h)
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.85(1)(i)
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.89
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.3

Cases cited (3)

Kiboro V. Posts & Telecommunications Corporation (1974) E.A. 155
Farrab Incorporated V. The Official Receiver and Provisional Liquidator (1959) E.A. 5
Commissioner of Transport V. Attorney General of Uganda (1959) EA 329

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.