Wakilii

Delia Almeda v Carmo Rui Almeida [1990] UGSC 12

Supreme Court · 1990 Notice of Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Applications for a stay of execution and to strike out the notice of appeal in an intended civil appeal from the High Court.
Decision
Notice of appeal struck out with costs; application for stay of execution dismissed with costs.

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 intending appellant lodged a notice of appeal but failed to copy his request for the proceedings to the respondent as required by Rule 81(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and made no application to extend time. As a result the time the court took to prepare the proceedings could not be excluded, the record of appeal was not lodged within time, and an essential step had not been taken. The Court held Rule 81(2) is mandatory and that, while it may assist a blameless applicant delayed by the court, it cannot aid an applicant at fault. The notice of appeal was struck out with costs, and the dependent stay application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Facts

Judgment was given in High Court Civil Suit No. 595 of 1987 on 14 March 1990. The intending appellant lodged a notice of appeal on 21 March 1990 and then had 60 days to lodge the record of appeal under Rule 81. To have the court's preparation time excluded, the appellant had to apply for the proceedings and copy that request to the respondent. The appellant's request for proceedings was dated 20 March 1990 but was not copied to the respondent, and no further application was made within the 30-day period. The record should have been lodged by 20 May 1990 but was not, the next proceedings occurring only in June 1990. The respondent applied to strike out the notice of appeal, and the appellant separately applied for a stay of execution.

Issues

  1. Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out under Rule 80 for failure to take an essential step in the proceedings within the prescribed time.
  2. Whether the application for a stay of execution could be maintained if the notice of appeal was struck out.

Orders

  • Notice of appeal struck out with costs.
  • Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal — Striking out for failure to take an essential step in time (Rule 80)
Where an intending appellant fails to take an essential step in the appeal within the time prescribed, the notice of appeal is liable to be struck out under Rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Request for proceedings — Mandatory service on respondent (Rule 81(2))
Rule 81(2), requiring an intending appellant to copy the request for proceedings to the respondent, is mandatory; failure to comply means the time taken by the court to prepare the proceedings cannot be deducted from the time allowed to lodge the record of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of execution — Dependence on a subsisting notice of appeal (Rule 5(2)(b))
An application for a stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b) must be founded on a notice of appeal having been lodged, and cannot be maintained once that notice of appeal has been struck out.
Civil Procedure — Extension of time — Relief for a blameless applicant versus one at fault
Although the court may take into account the position of a blameless applicant faced with delay caused by the court itself, it will not relieve an applicant whose default caused the failure to comply with the rules.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Court of Appeal Rules r.5(2)(b)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.80
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.81(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.81(2)
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.