Plaxeda v Libyan Arab Uganda Bank for Foreign Trade (Civil Application 6 of 1986)

Supreme Court · [1987] UGSC 5 · 1987 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application by the appeal respondent (the Bank) under rule 80 to strike out the appellant's notice of appeal for failure to lodge the appeal within the prescribed time.

Decision

Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed; High Court directed to expedite preparation of the record of proceedings.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 held that the appellant had exercised all due diligence in prosecuting the appeal, having applied in writing for the record of proceedings within thirty days of judgment and repeatedly followed up, but was frustrated by the High Court's inordinate delay in preparing and certifying the record. The failure to copy the request to the respondent caused no prejudice, as the respondent was aware of the appellant's efforts. It would be a denial of justice to penalise a party for the shortcomings of the court. The application to strike out the notice of appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, and the High Court was directed to expedite preparation of the record.

Facts

Judgment was entered against the appellant in favour of the Bank in the High Court (Civil Suit No. 422 of 1983) on 29 August 1984. The appellant filed a notice of appeal, served on 11 September 1984, and on 25 September 1984 wrote to the High Court applying for a copy of the proceedings. The appellant's counsel followed up by a further letter on 6 June 1985, and newly briefed advocates also wrote requesting the record. The High Court did not respond; the appellant was repeatedly told the proceedings were not ready and at one point that the file was missing. The original case file contained only handwritten judge's notes and no typed, certified proceedings, and the Registrar never certified the time required for preparation of the record. The proceedings were therefore never ready for delivery to the appellant. The Bank, having (it claimed) obtained a copy of the typed proceedings, applied to strike out the notice of appeal on the ground that the appellant had failed to lodge the appeal within sixty days.

Issues

Whether the appellant had taken the necessary essential steps to diligently prosecute the appeal, so as to defeat an application to strike out the notice of appeal.
Whether the appellant could rely on the proviso to rule 81(1) to exclude the time for preparation of the record, despite failing to copy the application for proceedings to the respondent as required by rule 81(2).

Orders

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.
The High Court directed to expedite preparation of the record of proceedings to enable the appellant to lodge the appeal.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty to prosecute appeal diligently

An intending appellant has a duty to take all necessary steps to prosecute the appeal, including taking steps to ensure the appeal is instituted within the time prescribed by the rules.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Computation of time — Proviso to rule 81(1)

Where an application for a copy of the proceedings in the superior court is made within thirty days of the decision, the time certified by the Registrar as required for preparation and delivery of the record is excluded in computing the time within which the appeal must be instituted.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Striking out — Delay attributable to the court

Where an appellant has exercised all due diligence to obtain the record of proceedings but is prevented from lodging the appeal in time by the court's inordinate delay in preparing and certifying the record, the notice of appeal will not be struck out, as it would be a denial of justice to penalise a party for the shortcomings of the courts.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Rule 81(2) — Service of application for proceedings on respondent

Failure to send the respondent a copy of the written application for the record of proceedings does not defeat the appellant's position where the respondent was aware of the appellant's efforts to obtain the record and suffered no prejudice from the omission.

Legislation cited (6)

Rules of the Court of Appeal r.80
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.81
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.81(1) (proviso)
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.81(2)
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.8(1)
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.4

Cases cited (3)

Ribeiro v Siqueira & Facho (1936) 3 All ER 537
Commissioner of Transport v Attorney General of Uganda (1959) EA 329
Bhatt v Tejwant Singh [1962] EA 497

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.