East African Steel Corporation Ltd v Statewide Insurance Corporation Limited (Civil Application No. 10 of 1999)

Court of Appeal · [1999] UGCA 68 · 1999 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to strike out a notice of appeal under Rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Decision

Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 dismissed an application to strike out the respondent's notice of appeal for delay. The respondent's counsel had repeatedly requested typed copies of the High Court proceedings and judgment but the trial court file could not be located. Under Rule 82(2), time taken in preparing the record is excluded from the period computed against an intended appellant, so time had not begun to run against the respondent. The respondent was diligent and no blame attached to it; the fault lay with the High Court Civil Registry. Rule 81 was therefore inapplicable. The court also declined to order a retrial or the opening of a duplicate file, the latter being an administrative matter for the trial court.

Facts

On 12 December 1995 judgment was entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent. On 18 December 1995 the respondent filed a notice of appeal, served on the applicant's counsel on 21 December 1995. On 29 December 1995 the respondent's counsel wrote to the Deputy Registrar of the High Court requesting typed copies of the proceedings and judgment. Having received no reply, the respondent's counsel sent reminders on 22 April 1996, 28 June 1996 and 28 February 1997. Counsel personally attended the Civil Registry where a search was conducted but the file could not be found. The applicant then applied to strike out the notice of appeal, contending that the respondent had inordinately delayed in filing its appeal and memorandum of appeal.

Issues

Whether the respondent had inordinately delayed in filing its appeal and memorandum of appeal so as to warrant striking out the notice of appeal under Rule 81.
Whether the court could order a retrial or the opening of a duplicate file in the absence of a pending appeal.

Orders

The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Striking Out Notice of Appeal — Computation of Time Under Rule 82(2)

Time taken while preparing the record of appeal is excluded from the time computed against an intended appellant under Rule 82(2), so where the appellant is awaiting typed copies of the proceedings and judgment, time has not begun to run and the appeal cannot be struck out for delay.

Appeals — Diligence of Appellant — Delay Attributable to Court Registry

Where an intended appellant has diligently and repeatedly requested the record from the trial court but the file cannot be located, no blame for delay attaches to the appellant and an application to strike out the notice of appeal must fail.

Appeals — Retrial and Reconstruction of Missing File

An appellate court cannot order a retrial where no appeal is presently before it, and the reconstruction or opening of a duplicate file is an administrative exercise for the trial court to undertake at the parties' request after an exhaustive search for the missing file has proved fruitless.

Legislation cited (2)

Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 81
Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 82(2)

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.