Paul J. Erongot v N.P.A.R.T (Civil Misc. Application No. 17 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1997] UGCA 10 · 1997 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to strike out a civil appeal for being lodged outside the statutory limitation period.

Decision

Application to strike out the appeal dismissed; appeal allowed to proceed as within time

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 court held that section 17(4) of the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute 1994 authorises the application of any written law governing civil appeals from the High Court, including Rule 82(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996, to appeals from the Tribunal. Accordingly, time certified by the Registrar for preparing and delivering the record of appeal is excluded when computing the one-month limitation period. As the applicant had applied for the proceedings in writing and served the respondent, the excluded time brought the appeal within time. The court distinguished Makula International, where no equivalent enabling provision existed, and rejected the argument that section 17(5) ousted jurisdiction over the interlocutory point. The application to strike out was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondent applied to strike out the applicant's Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1997 on the ground that it was not lodged within the one-month statutory period prescribed by section 17(3) of the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute 1994. The Tribunal's order had been passed, a Notice of Appeal lodged, and the appeal subsequently filed. The respondent (as appellant in the substantive appeal) argued that the time certified by the Registrar for preparing and delivering the record of proceedings should be excluded. A written application for the copy of proceedings had been made and served on the opposing party, and the record was completed before the appeal was lodged. The court considered whether section 17(4) of the Statute allowed the application of Rule 82(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules to exclude that time.

Issues

Whether the appeal was lodged outside the one-month statutory limitation period under section 17(3) of the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute 1994 and should be struck out.
Whether the time certified by the Registrar for preparation of the record of proceedings is to be excluded in computing the limitation period under Rule 82(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, by virtue of section 17(4) of the Statute.
Whether section 17(5) of the Statute barred the court from entertaining the interlocutory application.

Orders

Application dismissed.
Costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Incorporation of Written Law — Section 17(4) NPART Statute Applying Court of Appeal Rules to Tribunal Appeals

Where a statute authorises the application of any written law governing civil appeals from the High Court to appeals from a tribunal, the Court of Appeal Rules, including the rule excluding time for preparation of the record, apply with necessary modifications to such tribunal appeals.

Civil Procedure — Limitation of Appeals — Exclusion of Time for Preparation of Record

In computing the statutory period for instituting an appeal, the time certified by the Registrar as required for the preparation and delivery of the record of proceedings is excluded, provided the appellant applied for the copy in writing and served the respondent.

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Ouster Clauses — Interlocutory Applications Arising From Permitted Appeals

An ouster clause prohibiting a court from entertaining proceedings questioning a tribunal's decision does not bar the court from determining an interlocutory point of law arising within a statutorily permitted appeal.

Legislation cited (10)

Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute 1994 s.17(3)
Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute 1994 s.17(4)
Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute 1994 s.17(5)
Judicature Statute 1996 s.14
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.81
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.82(1)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.82(2)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.82(3)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.42
Civil Procedure Rules Order 47 r.4

Cases cited (1)

Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)

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.