Bakaluba Mukasa Peter and Another v Nalugo Mary Margaret Sekiziyivu (Election Petition Application No. 24 of 2011)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Holding

The Court of Appeal struck out the respondent's notice of appeal because she failed to file her memorandum of appeal within seven days and the record of appeal within the time stipulated by the Parliamentary Elections (Petitions) Rules. The Court held that election matters must be disposed of expeditiously under Article 140 of the Constitution and the relevant rules, so the latitude available under the Court of Appeal Rules does not apply. While civil procedure may be applied to election appeals under rule 36 with modifications, this only applies where justice demands. The respondent's delay deprived the successful party of the fruits of judgment. Each party was to bear its own costs.

Facts

The respondent filed a written notice of appeal on 27 July 2011 against a decision of the High Court, serving it on the applicants on 2 August 2011 together with a letter requesting a typed copy of the proceedings. Under the Parliamentary Elections (Petitions) Rules, the respondent was required to file a memorandum of appeal within seven days and a record of appeal within thirty days. She did not do so. The applicants applied to strike out the notice of appeal for non-compliance. The respondent explained that her lawyers had applied for a copy of the record but it had not been availed, and that a court clerk had been informed the judge was on leave and could not be traced to proofread and sign the typed judgment. The applicants argued the failures were fatal under the election rules.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent's notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to file a memorandum and record of appeal within the time stipulated by the Parliamentary Elections (Petitions) Rules.
2. Whether the civil practice on enlargement of time and the wider procedure under the Court of Appeal Rules apply to election petition appeals.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• Notice of appeal struck out.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I.13-10 r.82
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I.13-10 r.43(1)(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I.13-10 r.83
• Parliamentary Elections (Petitions) Rules S.I.141-2 r.30
• Parliamentary Elections (Petitions) Rules S.I.141-2 r.31
• Parliamentary Elections (Petitions) Rules S.I.141-2 r.33
• Parliamentary Elections (Petitions) Rules S.I.141-2 r.36
• Parliamentary Elections (Petitions) Rules S.I.141-2 r.13
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 140
• Parliamentary Elections Act s.63(2)
• Parliamentary Elections Act s.66(2)(4)

Cases cited (5)

• Hon. Rose Akol Okullo another y Among Annet Anita -Election Petition Application No.35/07
• Mparo General Contractors Ltd v Uganda National Examination Board (Civil Application No. 82 of 2004)
• Wanume David Kitamirike v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 138 of 2010)
• Mabosi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 16 of 1995)
• The Environmental Action Network v Joseph Eryau (Civil Application No. 89 of 2005)