Wakilii

Ssekazi Godfrey v Kyeyune David (Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 269 · 2025 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from a High Court appellate decision, itself an appeal from a Chief Magistrate's Court judgment in a breach of contract suit.
Decision
Appeal allowed; the High Court appellate judgment set aside as null and void and the trial Magistrate's judgment and orders upheld.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 7 (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

On a second appeal, the Court held that the memorandum of appeal to the High Court was filed roughly 84 days after the Magistrate's judgment, contrary to the 30-day limit in section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, without any application for the record of proceedings or for extension of time. A notice of appeal does not originate an appeal, and appellate jurisdiction springs only from statute. There was therefore no competent appeal before the first appellate Judge; the proceedings and judgment were null and void and were set aside. The appeal succeeded and the trial Magistrate's judgment and orders were upheld, with costs to the appellant.

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Luwero for breach of a contract to make a power connection to his guest house, claiming Shs. 1,350,000 plus interest, general damages and costs. The trial Magistrate found the contract was for power connection rather than creation of a line and entered judgment for the appellant. The respondent appealed to the High Court (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2014). The respondent had filed a notice of appeal within time but lodged the memorandum of appeal in the High Court around 15 May 2014, about 84 days after the Magistrate's judgment, without applying for the record of proceedings or for an extension of time. An application to strike out the appeal for being out of time had not been endorsed by the Registrar and was not served. The first appellate Judge proceeded ex parte, dispensed with the respondent's submissions, and set aside the Magistrate's judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the first appellate Judge erred in law in determining Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2014 while an application to strike it out for being filed out of time was pending.
  2. Whether the first appellate Judge erred in law in hearing and disposing of an appeal that was filed out of time and where no extension of time had been granted.
  3. Whether the resulting High Court appellate judgment was valid where the memorandum of appeal was not properly before the court.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The judgment and proceedings of the first appellate Judge in High Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2014 are null and void and are set aside.
  • The judgment and orders of the trial Chief Magistrate are upheld.
  • The respondent shall bear the costs of this appeal and in the courts below.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Limitation — Memorandum of appeal filed outside the 30-day period under section 79(1) Civil Procedure Act
A memorandum of appeal lodged in the High Court outside the thirty-day period prescribed by section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where the appellant neither applied in writing for the record of proceedings so as to attract the exclusion in section 79(2) nor obtained an extension of time, is incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of appeal does not originate an appeal
The filing of a notice of appeal does not amount to originating or instituting an appeal; an appeal in the High Court is commenced by a memorandum of appeal preferred under Order 43 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Jurisdiction — Effect of an incompetent appeal
The right of appeal is a creature of statute and appellate jurisdiction springs only from statute; where no competent appeal is before the court, the resulting proceedings and judgment are null and void and must be set aside.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution cannot cure failure to file within time
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, directing courts to administer justice without undue regard to technicalities, cannot be invoked to circumvent the mandatory statutory requirement that an appeal be filed within time; the determination of an appeal filed out of time, and the disregard of a pending application to strike it out, is not a mere technicality.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 71) s.79(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 71) s.79(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 71) s.79(1)(b)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 10(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 11
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 18
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 15
  • Judicature Act s.14(1)
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Judicature Act s.39(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 139(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28

Cases cited (13)

  • G. M Combined (U) Ltd v A. K Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1997)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 1 EA 22 (SCU)
  • Attorney General v Florence Baliraine (Constitutional Petition No. 11 of 2021)
  • Lutaya v Omodo [2001] 2 EA 140
  • Kibalama v United Assurance Co. Ltd [2004] UGSC 6
  • G. M Combined (U) Ltd v A. K Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1998)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank [1994] EA 117
  • Hannington Wasswa & Another v Maria Onyango Ochola & 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1992)
  • Kasirye, Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997)
  • Beatrice Kobusingye v Fiona Nyakana & George Nyakana (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2001)
  • Semakula Musoke & Another v Nabamba & 3 Others (Civil Application No. 22 of 2019)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No 4) [1971] 1 EA 50
  • Baku Raphael Obudra v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
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.