Wakilii

Kiryowa Musa v Mwenge Richard and Others (Civil Application No. 244 of 2021)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 140 · 2026 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out Notices of Appeal for failure to take an essential step within the prescribed time
Decision
Application allowed; the respondents' Notices of Appeal struck out

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 applicants sought to strike out the respondents' Notices of Appeal on the ground that, although the respondents lodged the Notices in time and applied for the proceedings, they served the Notices on the applicants' counsel outside the mandatory seven-day period under Rule 78 and without seeking leave to serve out of time. The Court held that Rule 78 imposes a mandatory obligation to serve a Notice of Appeal within seven days of lodging, and that late service without leave or an adequate explanation constitutes a failure to take an essential step in the proceedings under Rule 82. The application was allowed and the Notices of Appeal struck out with costs to the applicants.

Facts

Judgment was delivered by the Court of Appeal on 10 September 2020 in favour of the applicants. The respondents, being dissatisfied, each lodged a Notice of Appeal in the High Court together with a letter requesting a copy of the judgment and proceedings, within the prescribed time. The letter requesting proceedings was served on the applicants' counsel within time. However, service of the Notices of Appeal on the applicants' counsel was effected on 8 October 2020, outside the seven-day period prescribed by Rule 78 for service after lodging. The respondents did not apply for or obtain leave to serve out of time. The applicants brought this application to strike out the Notices of Appeal for failure to take an essential step within the prescribed time. The respondents filed no affidavit in reply and no submissions, and neither they nor their counsel appeared at the hearing, which proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents' failure to serve the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed seven days under Rule 78 renders the Notice incompetent and liable to be struck out under Rule 82 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions.

Orders

  • The Respondents' Notices of Appeal are hereby struck out.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Applicants.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Service of Notice of Appeal — Mandatory seven-day period under Rule 78
Rule 78 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions imposes a mandatory obligation on an intended appellant to serve the Notice of Appeal on all persons directly affected within seven days of lodging it, and service effected beyond that period without leave of court is non-compliant.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Striking out Notice of Appeal — Failure to take an essential step under Rule 82
Failure to serve a Notice of Appeal within the time prescribed by Rule 78, without an application for and adequate explanation justifying an extension of time, constitutes a failure to take an essential step in the proceedings, rendering the Notice incompetent and liable to be struck out under Rule 82.
Civil Procedure — Extension of time — Indulgence of the court — Requirement of adequate excuse
Rules of procedure are made to be observed, and where there has been excessive delay the court must be satisfied that there is an adequate excuse or that the interests of justice require its indulgence before relieving a party of non-compliance.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.42
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.44
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.76
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.78
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.82

Cases cited (6)

  • Mustafa Abdula Bhegani v James Obol Ochou (Civil Application No. 4 of 1987)
  • Margaret Lugolamo v Nkumbo College School (Civil Application No. 04 of 2013)
  • Andrew Moviri v Lomayi Property Consultants Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 224 of 2014)
  • David Etuket v Okonye Mustafa Andanor (Civil Application No. 770 of 2009)
  • Shah Bharmal v Santosh Kumari [1961] EA 679
  • Attorney General v Oriental Construction Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1990)
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.