Nabossa Aisha v Yagala Christine and Others (Civil Appeal 84 of 2017; Civil Application No. 399 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 288 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from a High Court Land Division ruling, heard together with the respondent's application to strike out the appeal for failure to take essential steps within time

Decision

Appeal struck out and dismissed with costs for failure to take an essential step within the prescribed time

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 an intending appellant may only rely on rule 83(2) to exclude the time taken to prepare the record of proceedings where there is proof that the request for the record was in writing, was served on the respondent, and that the appellant retained proof of service, as required by rule 83(3). The appellant adduced no affidavit of service and so could not benefit from the exclusion; her appeal, filed on the 58th day after receiving the record, was therefore lodged out of time. Having failed to serve the notice of appeal and the letter requesting proceedings, she failed to take an essential step, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The appellant filed a civil suit in the High Court Land Division against the respondents seeking declarations, a permanent injunction, general damages and costs, together with an application for an injunction. A preliminary objection that the suit was time-barred was upheld and the suit dismissed. The appellant filed a notice of appeal and, on 1 December 2016, her counsel wrote to the Deputy Registrar requesting a typed copy of the proceedings. The record of proceedings was availed on 13 March 2017, and the memorandum and record of appeal were filed on 10 May 2017, the 58th day after receipt. The 4th respondent applied to strike out the appeal, contending that neither the notice of appeal nor the letter requesting the proceedings had been served on him or his counsel. The appellant asserted that counsel was served but refused to acknowledge receipt; she produced no affidavit of service to prove service.

Issues

Whether the appellant could rely on rule 83(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules to exclude the time taken to prepare the record when computing the time for instituting the appeal.
Whether the appeal was instituted within the time prescribed by the rules.
Whether the appellant failed to take an essential step in the proceedings such that the appeal should be struck out.

Orders

The objections are upheld.
No appeal lies before the Court.
The appeal is dismissed.
Costs awarded to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Computation of Time — Exclusion of Time for Preparing the Record (rule 83(2)-(3))

An appellant may exclude the time taken to prepare and deliver the record of proceedings when computing the period for instituting an appeal only where the request for the record was made in writing, a copy was served on the respondent, and the appellant retained proof of that service; absent such proof the exclusion in rule 83(2) is unavailable and the full period runs.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Service — Affidavit of Service as Proof

A party who asserts that the notice of appeal and the letter requesting proceedings were served must prove that service by cogent evidence such as an affidavit of service; a bare assertion that opposing counsel was served but declined to acknowledge receipt, unsupported by proof, is insufficient.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Striking Out — Essential Steps as Mandatory Requirements

Serving the notice of appeal and the letter requesting the record of proceedings within the prescribed time are mandatory essential steps, not mere procedural formalities; failure to take them renders the appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out under rule 82.

Legislation cited (3)

Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directives S.I 13-1 rule 30(1)(a)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directives S.I 13-1 rule 82
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directives S.I 13-1 rule 83

Cases cited (4)

Selle and another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd & another [1968] EA 123
Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Kasirye Byaruhanga and Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Court of Appeal No. 2 of 1997)
Kibalama Mugwanya v Butebi Investment Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2013)

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.