Mustaq Abdullah Bhegani v James J. Obol-Ochola (Civil Application 4 of 1987)

Court of Appeal · [1987] UGCA 7 · 1987 Application Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to strike out a notice of appeal for failure to file the record of appeal within the prescribed time

Decision

Application to strike out the notice of appeal allowed with costs to the applicant

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

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 respondent lodged a notice of appeal but failed to take any step to file the record of appeal within the 60-day period prescribed by the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant applied under Rule 80 to strike out the notice of appeal. The court held that Rule 82 renders a notice of appeal invalid where the record is not filed within time, and Rule 80 empowers a served party to move the court to strike out the notice with costs once Rule 82(a) can be invoked. The application was therefore properly brought and, being unopposed on any other ground, succeeded. The notice of appeal was struck out with costs to the applicant.

Facts

The applicant and respondent disputed ownership of a house on Plot 15 Salmon Rise, Bugolobi, Kampala. The respondent took the dispute to the High Court of Uganda and lost the suit against the applicant on 28 November 1986. On 1 December 1986 the respondent lodged a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal. A copy was served on counsel for the applicant. The respondent thereafter took no step to file the record of appeal within the prescribed 60-day period or at all. On 31 July 1987 counsel for the applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal. At the hearing, counsel for the respondent conceded that no step had been taken to file the record of appeal.

Issues

Whether an application to strike out a notice of appeal under Rule 80 is misconceived where the appeal is said to have been deemed withdrawn under Rule 82.
Whether the respondent's notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to file the record of appeal within the prescribed time.

Orders

Application allowed.
Notice of appeal struck out.
Costs of the application to the applicant.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Striking Out Notice of Appeal — Failure to File Record Within Prescribed Time

Rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules renders a notice of appeal invalid where the record of appeal has not been filed within the prescribed time of 60 days, and Rule 80 empowers a party on whom the notice was served to move the court to strike out the notice with costs once Rule 82(a) can be invoked.

Appeals — Application to Strike Out Not Misconceived Despite Deemed Withdrawal

An application under Rule 80 to strike out a notice of appeal is properly brought and is not misconceived merely because the appeal may be deemed to have been withdrawn under Rule 82; Rule 80 entitles the served party to obtain an order striking out the notice with costs.

Legislation cited (3)

Court of Appeal Rules rule 80
Court of Appeal Rules rule 82
Court of Appeal Rules rule 81

Cases cited (1)

Kitariko v Kataama (Civil Application No. 6 of 1982)

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.