Wakilii

Genegri Plantation Limited v SWATT Security Limited (Civil Application 193 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 2 · 2025 Application Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to strike out a notice of appeal and the appeal for failure to take an essential step
Decision
Application to strike out allowed; Civil Appeal No. 301/2024 struck out and the High Court stay of execution vacated

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 held that the Respondent, having lodged a Notice of Appeal, failed to take an essential step within the meaning of Rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules by not filing the Memorandum and Record of Appeal within the 60 days prescribed by Rule 83, even after the certified record of proceedings was made available and time recomputed. The Respondent's instruction of new counsel to request a fresh record was treated as dilatory conduct to circumvent the mandatory timelines. Since a Notice of Appeal is a jurisdictional instrument, striking it out ends any appeal commenced by it, including one belatedly filed without a validation order. The application was allowed, the appeal struck out, the stay of execution vacated, and costs awarded to the Applicant.

Facts

The Respondent sued the Applicant in the High Court (Land Division) in HCCS No. 256 of 2018; the suit was dismissed and the Applicant's counterclaim allowed, with the Applicant declared registered proprietor of the suit land, the Respondent's title cancelled as super-imposed, an eviction order, and an award of mesne profits, general damages and costs. Dissatisfied, the Respondent lodged a Notice of Appeal on 15 June 2023 and requested certified proceedings, which were availed on 14 August 2023. The Respondent did not file the Memorandum and Record of Appeal within the 60 days. After instructing new counsel, the Respondent requested a fresh complete record on 23 October 2023, alleging missing parts; a complete record was availed on 15 January 2024. By 26 March 2024, when the Applicant filed the present application to strike out, the Respondent had still not filed the Memorandum and Record of Appeal, and continued to benefit from a stay of execution.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent, having filed a Notice of Appeal, failed to take an essential step by not filing the Memorandum and Record of Appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether Civil Appeal No. 236 of 2024 (subsequently renumbered Civil Appeal No. 301 of 2024), commenced by the Notice of Appeal, ought to be struck out.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 301/2024 filed by the Respondent subsequent to this application on the basis of the impugned Notice of Appeal is struck out.
  • The order of stay of execution of the judgment and decree in High Court Civil Suit No. 256 of 2018 issued vide HCMA No. 1172/2023 pending determination of the Respondent's appeal is vacated.
  • The Applicant is awarded costs of the application.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Striking Out Notice of Appeal — Failure to Take an Essential Step
Failure by an intending appellant to file the Memorandum and Record of Appeal within the sixty days prescribed by Rule 83 of the Court of Appeal Rules constitutes failure to take an essential step in the proceedings within the meaning of Rule 82, rendering the Notice of Appeal and any appeal commenced by it liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Computation of Time — Exclusion for Preparation of Proceedings
Under Rule 83(2) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the time taken by the registrar to prepare and avail certified proceedings is excluded from the sixty-day period only where the appellant's request was in writing and served on the respondent; the computation resumes once the appellant is notified that the proceedings are ready for collection.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal as Jurisdictional Instrument
A Notice of Appeal is a jurisdictional instrument and the foundation of an appeal; striking it out ends any appeal commenced by it, including one subsequently filed, unless there is an order validating the belated filing.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of Intending Appellant — Diligence and Dilatory Conduct
It is the duty of the intending appellant, and not of the court or any other party, to take the necessary steps to prosecute an appeal within the prescribed time; dilatory conduct and disobedience of the Rules will not be excused on the basis of substantive justice or absence of prejudice.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.82
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.83
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.84
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.76
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.18(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.18(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.56(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.4(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126

Cases cited (11)

  • Bakaluba Mukasa Peter & Another v Nalugo Mary Margaret Sekiziyivu (Election Petition Appeal No. 24 of 2011)
  • Andrew Mavu v Jonayi Property Consultants Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 274 of 2014)
  • James Bahinguza & Anor v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 269 of 2013)
  • NHCC Ltd v Salome Kyonankama (Civil Application No. 133 of 2009)
  • Kansiime K. Andrew v Himalaya Traders Ltd & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2021)
  • Okwanga Valentino & others v Gulu District Local Council Government (Civil Appeal No. 265 of 2013)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • Abiriga Ibrahim Y.A v Moatana Mudathir Bruce (Election Petition Application No. 24 of 2016)
  • Elizabeth Kobusinge v Annet Zimbiha (Civil Appeal No. 245 of 2019)
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Wilfred Rottich Lesan (Civil Application No. 228 of 2013)
  • Kansiime Andrew Lwasime v Richard Henry Lwajuka (Civil Reference No. 75 of 2016)
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.