Namoda v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 21.98)

Court of Appeal · [1999] UGCA 73 · 1999 Preliminary Objection Upheld — Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal met by a preliminary objection to the competence of the memorandum of appeal

Decision

Appeal struck out for a materially defective memorandum of appeal

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 of Appeal upheld a preliminary objection that the memorandum of appeal was materially defective for failing to comply with Rule 85(1) of the Rules of the Court. The grounds were too vague and did not disclose the points of law allegedly wrongly decided by the trial judge. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that such points could be disclosed only during the hearing, holding that Rule 85(1) is mandatory because the opposing party is entitled to know in advance the points to be argued. The memorandum was found incurably defective, and the appeal was struck out with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The appellant filed a civil appeal against a decision of the lower court. When the appeal came for hearing, counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the memorandum of appeal was materially defective because it did not comply with Rule 85(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal. The respondent argued that the grounds were too vague: the first ground did not specify which points of law were wrongly decided, and the second ground did not explain how the lower court had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. It was also argued that the prayer was superfluous as it sought an order already made by the lower court. The appellant's counsel contended that the memorandum was competent because questions of law need not be stated in the memorandum, as doing so would be narrative, and that such points could be disclosed during the hearing.

Issues

Whether the memorandum of appeal complied with Rule 85(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal by disclosing the points of law allegedly wrongly decided.
Whether points of law in an appeal may be disclosed only in the course of the hearing rather than in the memorandum of appeal.

Orders

Preliminary objection upheld.
Appeal struck out.
Costs awarded to the respondent here and in the court below.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Compliance with Rule 85(1) — Disclosure of Points of Law

A memorandum of appeal that fails to disclose the specific points of law allegedly wrongly decided by the trial judge is materially and incurably defective for non-compliance with Rule 85(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal.

Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Mandatory Nature of Rule 85(1)

The requirement under Rule 85(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal is mandatory; the points of law to be argued must appear in the memorandum of appeal itself and cannot be reserved for disclosure only in the course of the hearing, since the opposing party is entitled to know in advance the points to be argued.

Legislation cited (1)

Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 85(1)

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.