Wakilii

Kibuuka Musoke William and Another vs Dr. Apollo Kaggwa (Civil Appeal No 46 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 5 · 1998 Preliminary Objection Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on a preliminary objection raised at the hearing of a civil appeal from a High Court judgment
Decision
Preliminary objection rejected; appeal held competent to proceed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 dismissed a preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent because the record did not contain a formal extracted decree. The court held that under the Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 (in force from 28 October 1996), extraction of a formal decree is no longer a requirement for instituting an appeal. An appeal lies against the judgment or reasoned order, not the decree. Under rule 86(10), the decree forms part of the record only where its date or terms are disputed, or where its terms form a ground of appeal. The earlier authorities requiring a decree, decided under the 1972 Rules and Civil Procedure Ordinance, no longer applied, consistent with Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.

Facts

Dr. Apollo Kaggwa sued W. Kibuuka Musoke and S. Muwemba in the High Court, claiming general and special damages for the appellants' failure to repair or restore his water pipes at Mawanga, Buziga. He alleged that the appellants disconnected his water pipes while constructing sewerage septic water tanks in their backyard, through which his pipes passed, causing him to incur expenses repairing the pipes and obtaining an alternative water source pending repairs. The High Court entered judgment for the respondent, awarding Shs. 4.5 million general damages, Shs. 1.5 million special damages, and costs. The appellants appealed. At the hearing of the appeal, respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent because the record of appeal did not contain the decree extracted from the judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal is incompetent where the record of appeal does not contain the formal decree extracted from the judgment appealed against, under the Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection rejected.
  • Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the appellants.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Record of Appeal — Whether a formal extracted decree is required under the Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996
Under the Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996, the extraction of a formal decree embodying the decision complained of is no longer a legal requirement for the institution of an appeal; an appeal lies against the judgment or reasoned order itself.
Civil Procedure — Record of Appeal — When a decree forms part of the record under rule 86(10)
Under rule 86(10) of the Court of Appeal Rules, a decree forms part of the record of appeal only where the date of the decree is disputed, where the terms of the decree are alleged to be at variance with the judgment, or where the terms of the decree form a ground of appeal, unless the court otherwise directs.
Statutory Interpretation — Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution — Substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities
A requirement to extract a formal decree before an appeal will lie is a mere technicality that cannot co-exist with Article 126(2)(e) of the 1995 Constitution, which enjoins courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.82(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.86(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.86(3)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.86(10)
  • Court of Appeal for East Africa Rules 1972 r.85(1)(h)
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance (Cap 6)

Cases cited (6)

  • The Commissioner of Transport v The Attorney General of Uganda and Anor (1959) E.A. 329
  • Ribeiro v Siquera e Facho [1936] AC 300
  • Mohammedbhai & Co. Ltd v Ghani (1952) 19 E A C A 38
  • Mansion House Ltd. v Williamson (1954) 10 E A C A 98
  • Farrals Incorporated v Official Receiver and Provisional Lighsdator (1959) E A. 5
  • N.A.S. Airport Services Ltd v Attorney General of Kenyata (1959) E A. 53
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.