Reamaton Ltd v Uganda Corporation Cremaeries Ltd (Civil Application 55 of 1999)

Court of Appeal · [2000] UGCA 38 · 2000 Reference Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to a full Court under rule 54(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules from decisions of single Judges in Civil Application No. 44 of 1998

Decision

Reference allowed; single Judge's order granting leave to appeal set aside and the underlying application (No. 44 of 1998) dismissed

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 held that under rule 54(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules a party dissatisfied with a single Judge's decision has only one remedy — to challenge it by reference to the full Court — and cannot bring the matter afresh in a new application; no single Judge has appellate jurisdiction over another. The Court further held, applying section 70 of the Civil Procedure Act, that a party who fails to appeal a preliminary decree within the prescribed period cannot appeal against it when appealing the final decree. The single Judge had erred in granting leave to appeal the final decree inclusive of the preliminary decree. The reference was allowed with costs.

Facts

The applicants sued the respondents in the High Court to recover US$365,000 paid as a pre-finance loan to buy coffee. At the start of trial, a preliminary decree for US$211,200 was entered in the applicants' favour on the respondents' admission. The respondents did not appeal that preliminary decree within the prescribed period. After trial, a final decree for US$365,000 was entered for the applicants. The respondents filed a Notice of Appeal but failed to retain proof of service of their request for proceedings, and their appeal was filed out of time; the Notice of Appeal was struck out. Successive applications for extension of time (Nos. 33 and 34 of 1998) were dismissed by a single Judge. The respondents then filed Application No. 44 of 1998 for leave to file a fresh Notice of Appeal and the appeal itself, which another single Judge allowed. The applicants brought this reference challenging that decision.

Issues

Whether a party dissatisfied with a single Judge's decision may bring the matter afresh in a new application rather than by reference to the full Court.
Whether a single Judge may entertain a matter already decided by another single Judge.
Whether a party who failed to appeal against a preliminary decree within the prescribed period may appeal against it in the course of appealing against the final decree.

Orders

Reference allowed with costs in favour of the applicants.
Order of the single Judge granting the respondents leave to appeal set aside.
Order substituted dismissing Civil Application No. 44 of 1998.

Key headnotes

Court of Appeal — References from Single Judge — Exclusive Remedy under Rule 54(1)(b)

A party dissatisfied with the decision of a single Judge of the Court of Appeal has only one remedy, namely to challenge it on appeal by way of a reference to the full Court, and cannot bring the same matter afresh in another application.

Court of Appeal — Jurisdiction of Single Judges — No Appellate Jurisdiction Over Another Single Judge

No single Judge of the Court of Appeal has appellate jurisdiction over the decision of another single Judge, and a matter already decided by one single Judge cannot be re-entertained by the same or another single Judge.

Appeals — Preliminary Decree — Bar under Section 70 of the Civil Procedure Act

A party aggrieved by a preliminary decree who does not appeal against it within the prescribed period is precluded by section 70 of the Civil Procedure Act from disputing its correctness in an appeal against the final decree.

Appeals — Distinction Between Preliminary Decree and Interlocutory Order

A preliminary decree conclusively determines the rights of parties and must be appealed within the prescribed period, whereas an interlocutory order, being any decision that is not a decree, may be challenged in an appeal against the final decree; entering judgment on admission for a sum at the start of trial is a preliminary decree, not an interlocutory order.

Legislation cited (6)

Civil Procedure Act Cap 65 s.70
Judicature Statute 1996 s.13(2)
Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 rule 54(1)(b)
Court of Appeal Rules rule 82(3)
Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 r.3(1)
Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act Cap 53 First Schedule rule 8

Cases cited (7)

Champion Motor Spares Vs Barclays D C O and Another [1964] EA 385
William James Baker Vs Joseph Peter Rush [1964] EA 602
Samuel Kenneth Odendaal and The Official Receiver Vs Richard Gray [1960] EA 263
Noble Builders (U) Ltd v Seitco (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
F.J Mohamedbhai & Co. Vs. Abdul Chai [1952] 19 EACA 38
J. Hannington & others Vs Mafia Ochola & 3 others, CA No. 5/1990 SC
Gurdial Singh Dahillous Vs Shaun Kaur [1960] EA 795

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.