Wakilii

Dr. Okech Abe and 3 Others v Dr. Wokorach and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 315 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 211 · 2022 Preliminary Objection Upheld — Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment in a land dispute, determined on a preliminary objection that the appeal was filed out of time
Decision
Appeal struck out with costs for being filed out of time

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 sustained a preliminary objection that the appeal was filed out of time. Under rule 83(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the excludable period is the time certified by the Registrar as required to prepare and deliver a copy of the proceedings to the appellant. The copy of proceedings had been certified as a true copy on 16 September 2019, so it was ready for collection by then. The separate 'Registrar's Certificate' dated 12 November 2019 was not a prescribed form and could not be relied upon, appearing designed to circumvent rule 83(2). The appeal ought to have been filed by 15 November 2019 but was filed on 20 November 2019, five days late, with no application for extension. The appeal was struck out with costs.

Facts

The respondents (plaintiffs in the High Court) sued the appellants on behalf of 337 others seeking a declaration of customary ownership over land comprised in LRV 1077 Folio 22 in Nwoya District, cancellation of the appellants' title, general damages, a permanent injunction, interest and costs. The High Court (Mubiru, J), on 9 May 2019, found for the plaintiffs, declared them entitled to retain possession, granted a permanent injunction, ordered cancellation of the defendants' title, and dismissed the counterclaim. The appellants appealed. They lodged a notice of appeal on 14 May 2019 and requested certified copies of the proceedings and judgment. The judgment was certified on 25 July 2019 and the proceedings certified as a true copy on 16 September 2019. The appellants obtained a 'Registrar's Certificate' dated 12 November 2019 indicating completion and collection on that day, and filed the record of appeal on 20 November 2019. The respondents objected that the appeal was filed out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether time for instituting the appeal should be computed from the date of certification of the proceedings (16 September 2019) or from the date stated in the Registrar's Certificate when the appellants collected the record (12 November 2019).
  2. Whether the appeal was filed within the time prescribed by rule 83 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection of the respondent is sustained.
  • The appellants' appeal is struck out with costs for being filed out of time.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Time for Institution — Rule 83 Court of Appeal Rules — Excludable Period for Preparation of Proceedings
Under rule 83(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the time excluded in computing when an appeal must be instituted is only such time as the Registrar of the High Court certifies as having been required for the preparation and delivery of a copy of the proceedings to the appellant.
Appeals — Distinction Between 'Record of Appeal' and 'Proceedings'
The 'record of appeal' is prepared and certified by the appellant under rule 87(8), whereas the 'proceedings' are prepared by the Registrar; rule 83(2) concerns only the time taken to prepare and deliver the copy of proceedings, which is a subset of the record of appeal.
Appeals — Registrar's Certificate — Validity and Computation of Time
A document styled 'Registrar's Certificate' that is not among the prescribed forms and that records the date of collection rather than the time required to prepare and deliver the proceedings cannot be relied upon to extend the excludable period; where proceedings were certified as a true copy earlier, time runs from that earlier certification.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions rule 83(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions rule 83(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions rule 83(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions rule 83(4)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions rule 87
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions rule 87(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions rule 87(8)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions rule 90

Cases cited (1)

  • Maviri v Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd (Civil Application No. 271 of 2014)
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.