Reamaton Ltd v Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd (Civil Application No. 53 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 23 · 1998 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to strike out a notice of appeal for failure to take an essential step within the prescribed time

Decision

Notice of appeal struck out with costs to the applicant

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) 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 held that an appellant cannot rely on the time-saving provisions of Rule 82(2) unless a copy of the letter requesting the record of proceedings has been served on the respondent, with proof of service retained as required by Rule 82(3). As the respondents produced no such proof and no appeal had been filed within the prescribed 60-day period, the notice of appeal could not stand. The court further held that Rule 52(2)(d) does not permit extension of time in an application to strike out a notice of appeal, such extension lying only before a single judge under Rule 52(2)(c). The application was allowed and the notice of appeal struck out.

Facts

The applicant, Reamaton Ltd, sued the two respondents in the High Court and obtained judgment in its favour on 29 July 1997. On 30 July 1997 the respondents filed a notice of appeal against the judgment, and by letter dated 29 July 1997 applied for a copy of the record of proceedings. The respondents did not, however, serve the applicant's counsel with a copy of that letter nor retain proof of such service as required. After the statutory 60-day period for lodging the appeal expired without any appeal being filed, the applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal on the ground that an essential step had not been taken within the prescribed time.

Issues

Whether the respondents' failure to serve the applicant with a copy of the letter requesting the record of proceedings under Rule 82(3) was fatal to the intended appeal.
Whether the court hearing an application to strike out a notice of appeal could extend time for lodging the appeal under Rule 52(2)(d).

Orders

Application allowed.
Notice of appeal struck out.
Respondents to pay the applicant the costs of the application.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Notice of Appeal — Service of Letter Requesting Record of Proceedings under Rule 82(3)

An intending appellant cannot rely on the time-saving provisions of Rule 82(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules unless a copy of the letter requesting the record of proceedings has been served on the respondent and proof of that service retained as required by Rule 82(3).

Proof of Service — Affidavit of Service Insufficient Where Letter Not Endorsed or Stamped

Proof of service of a letter requesting the record of proceedings requires a copy bearing the endorsement and stamp of the respondent's advocates, or an affidavit of service explaining a refusal to accept or stamp it; an affidavit of service that fails to explain why only the notice of appeal, and not the letter, was stamped is insufficient.

Striking Out Notice of Appeal — Jurisdiction to Extend Time under Rule 52(2)(d)

Rule 52(2)(d) of the Court of Appeal Rules does not permit a court hearing an application to strike out a notice of appeal to extend the time for lodging the appeal; such an application for extension of time lies before a single judge under Rule 52(2)(c).

Legislation cited (6)

Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.42(2)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.43(1)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.81
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.82(2)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.82(3)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.52(2)

Cases cited (1)

Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997)

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.