Wakilii

Banco Arabe Espanal v Bank Of Uganda (Civil Application 42 of 98)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 42 · 1998 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out a notice of appeal and an appeal for incompetence
Decision
Application to strike out the notice of appeal and appeal dismissed; appeal allowed to proceed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 of Appeal held that the notice of appeal was filed within time, as rule 103(1) requiring payment of fees on lodging must be read with rule 75(2)'s fourteen-day period; fees paid within that window are valid. While the decree was not properly extracted, the proper forum to complain was the High Court. Crucially, the Court reaffirmed that under rule 86 of the 1996 Rules, extraction of a formal decree is no longer required to institute an appeal, being a mere technicality contrary to Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. The appeal lies against the judgment or reasoned order, not the extracted decree. The application to strike out was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant filed a suit in the High Court against the respondent claiming USD 1,473,604.70. The High Court ordered the applicant to furnish security for costs of UGX 20,000,000 within 30 days. When the money was not furnished in time, the suit was dismissed. The applicant applied under O.23 r.2(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules to reinstate the suit once the money was availed. On 27 May 1998, Byamugisha J. heard the application, allowed reinstatement, and ordered the matter set down for hearing on the merits. The respondent filed Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1998 against that reinstatement order. The notice of appeal was filed on 28 May 1998 and the fees paid on 2 June 1998. The order on record bore two dates (27 May 1998 as decision date and 25 June 1998 as the date signed and sealed by the Deputy Chief Registrar) and had not been approved by the applicant's counsel. The applicant then brought this application to strike out the notice of appeal and the appeal for incompetence.

Issues

  1. Whether the notice of appeal was incompetent because the filing fees were not paid on the same day the notice was lodged.
  2. Whether the appeal was incompetent for failure to extract a valid order or decree to be included in the record of appeal.
  3. Whether extraction of a formal decree remains a legal requirement for instituting an appeal under the Court of Appeal Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Payment of Filing Fees — Time for Payment
Rule 103(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, requiring fees to be paid when a document is lodged, must be read together with rule 75(2); for a notice of appeal the fees may be paid at any time within the fourteen-day period for lodging, and a notice with fees so paid is validly filed.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extraction of Decree No Longer Required
Under rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996, extraction of a formal decree embodying the decision complained of is no longer a legal requirement for instituting an appeal; an appeal lies against the judgment or reasoned order, not the decree, and the former requirement was a technicality incompatible with Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Defective Decree — Proper Forum for Complaint
A complaint that a decree or order was not properly extracted or signed in contravention of O.18 r.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules should be raised before the High Court under O.46 r.8, not as a ground for striking out an appeal in the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Record of Appeal — Meaning of 'Reasoned Order'
Within rule 86(1)(g) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 'a reasoned order' means a ruling given by the court, as distinct from 'an order' defined in section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act as the formal expression of a civil court's decision which is not a decree.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.75(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.81
  • Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.82
  • Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.86(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.86(1)(g)
  • Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.103(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.18 r.7(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.18 r.7(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.18 r.7(4)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.23 r.2(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.8
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 65) s.2
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (7)

  • Andrew Tendo v Express Transport Company H.C.C. No. 180/92 H.C.T CIVIL ITS Vol. 2 p. 42
  • Farrab Incorporate v The Receiver and Provisional Liquidator [1959] E.A. 5
  • Barclays Bank (U) Ltd v Eddy Rodgriques (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1987)
  • Unta Exports Ltd v Customs [1970] E.A. p. 648
  • Kazoora v Rukuba (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1992)
  • Inter Freight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Kibuuka Musoke William v Dr Appollo Kaggwa (Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1995)
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.