Stephen Mabosi V Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application 16 of 1995)

Supreme Court · [1995] UGSC 2 · 1995 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to strike out a notice of appeal for failure to institute the appeal within the prescribed time

Decision

Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed by majority; the respondent's appeal allowed to proceed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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

By majority the Court dismissed the application to strike out the notice of appeal. Odoki and Manyindo held that the respondent substantially complied with rule 81: the statement in the notice of appeal, addressed to and understood by the Registrar as a request for the record of proceedings, satisfied the requirement to apply for a copy, so the proviso to rule 81(1) applied and the 60-day period ran from 22 June 1995 when the proceedings were received; the appeal filed on 30 June 1995 was therefore in time. The Court invoked the principle that substantive justice is administered without undue regard to technicalities. Tsekooko J.S.C. dissented, holding the words were a mere declaration of intention and would have struck out the notice.

Facts

The respondent lodged a notice of appeal on 7 February 1995 against a High Court judgment in which the applicant had succeeded. The notice stated that the intending appellant would formulate its grounds of appeal on receipt of the record of proceedings and the ruling of the court; it did not separately and expressly apply for a copy of the proceedings. The respondent later wrote to the Registrar on 20 March 1995 and 15 May 1995 pressing for the record. On 22 June 1995 the Registrar certified that the proceedings, exhibits and judgment applied for by counsel on 7 February 1995 were sent on 22 June 1995. The respondent filed its appeal on 30 June 1995. The applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal on the ground that the appeal had not been instituted within 60 days, contending that the respondent had not made a written application for the proceedings as required by rule 81(2) and so could not rely on the proviso to rule 81(1).

Issues

Whether the statement in the notice of appeal that the intending appellant would formulate grounds of appeal on receipt of the record of proceedings amounted to an application for a copy of the proceedings under rule 81(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Whether the respondent could rely on the proviso to rule 81(1) so as to exclude the time taken to prepare and deliver the record of proceedings when computing the 60 days for instituting the appeal.

Orders

Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed (by majority).
Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Institution within time — Substantial compliance with rule 81

A notice of appeal that informs the Registrar the intending appellant will formulate grounds of appeal on receipt of the record of proceedings may, where it is addressed to the Registrar who understands and acts on it as such, amount to substantial compliance with the requirement under rule 81(2) to apply for a copy of the proceedings.

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

Where an application for a copy of the proceedings has been made, the time certified by the Registrar as required for the preparation and delivery of the proceedings is excluded in computing the 60-day period for instituting an appeal, so that the period runs from the date the appellant receives the proceedings.

Statutory Interpretation — Procedural rules — Substantive justice over technicalities

Procedural rules are to be applied so as to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, and a vigilant party who promptly institutes an appeal upon receiving the record of proceedings will not be driven from the seat of judgment on a technical objection.

Legislation cited (8)

Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
Rules of the Supreme Court r.80
Rules of the Supreme Court r.82
Rules of the Supreme Court r.74
Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)(e)
Criminal Procedure Act s.326(3)

Cases cited (2)

Kitariko v Twino-Katama (Civil Application No. 6 of 1982)
M.A. Bregani v J.O. Ochola (Civil Application No. 4 of 1987)

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.