Wakilii

Ocur Odwe Julius Peter v Mtn Uganda Limited (Civil Application No. 839 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 129 · 2026 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out a memorandum of appeal on the ground that it was filed and served out of time.
Decision
Application to strike out the memorandum of appeal dismissed; the appeal stands to be determined on its merits.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 dismissed an application to strike out the respondent's memorandum of appeal as time-barred. It held that, under Rule 83(2) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the time taken by the registrar to prepare and serve the certified record of proceedings is excluded from the 60-day appeal period where the appellant applied in writing within 30 days and served that request on the respondent. The respondent having complied, time began to run on 5 October 2022 when it was actually served with notice that the certified judgment and record were ready, not from an earlier letter served only on the applicant. The memorandum filed on 23 November 2022 fell on the 49th day, within time, so no leave was required.

Facts

The respondent appealed a High Court decision in HCCS No. 010 of 2012 (judgment delivered 21 August 2020) which had declared the applicant owner of the suit land, found the respondent a trespasser, and awarded the applicant UGX 300,000,000 in general damages with interest. The respondent lodged a notice of appeal on 3 September 2020 and, on the same matter, requested a certified record of proceedings, serving that request on the applicant on 4 September 2020. The registrar wrote a letter dated 13 June 2022 stating the record was ready, but it was served only on the applicant's counsel, with no proof of service on the respondent. The deputy registrar certified the proceedings on 6 June 2022 and the judgment on 5 September 2022, then issued a further letter dated 14 September 2022 to the respondent's counsel, who were served on 5 October 2022. The respondent filed its memorandum and record of appeal on 23 November 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the memorandum of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 460 of 2022 should be struck out for having been filed and served out of time.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Computation of Time — Exclusion of Record-Preparation Period under Rule 83(2)
In computing the sixty days within which an appeal to the Court of Appeal must be instituted, the time certified by the registrar as required to prepare and deliver the certified record of proceedings is excluded, provided the appellant applied in writing for the copy within thirty days of the decision and served that application on the respondent.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Computation of Time — Date from Which Time Begins to Run
Time for instituting an appeal begins to run from the date the appellant is actually served with notice that the certified record of proceedings is ready for collection, and not from the date of an earlier notification served only on the opposing party.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of the Intending Appellant Pending Preparation of the Record
Once an intending appellant has requested the record of proceedings from the High Court and served that request on the respondent, he is not required to do anything further until the registrar has completed compilation of the record.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-10 r.4
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-10 r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-10 r.78
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-10 r.82
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-10 r.83
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-10 r.84

Cases cited (5)

  • Maria Onyango Ochola and others v Hannington Wasswa [1996] HCB 43
  • Hajj Mohammed Nyanzi v Ali Sseggane [1992 - 1993] HCB 218
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (SCCA No. 52 of 1995)
  • Wanume David Kitamirike v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 138 of 2010)
  • Construction Engineers and Builders Limited v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 84 of 2001)
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.