Mwesige v Administrator General (Civil Application 7 of 1999)

Supreme Court · [1999] UGSC 29 · 1999 Application Granted ✦ 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, arising from Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1997.

Decision

Notice of appeal struck out with costs to the applicant

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 applicant sought to strike out the respondent's notice of appeal because the respondent had not instituted the appeal within sixty days of lodging the notice, as required by rule 78. The Court held that the appeal ought to have been instituted by 2 February 1999, that the application for a copy of the proceedings was made over 100 days out of time and was not served on the respondent, so rule 78(2) could not extend time. Attempts by the parties, who were relatives, to settle the matter out of court had no support in law and did not justify the delay, though they might be relevant to an application for extension of time. The application was granted and the notice of appeal struck out.

Facts

The respondent, the Administrator General, lost an appeal in the Court of Appeal, whose judgment was delivered on 20 November 1998. On 4 December 1998 the respondent lodged a notice of appeal intending to appeal to the Supreme Court. The respondent did not thereafter take the steps required by rules 77 and 78 to institute the appeal. Because the parties were blood relatives, attempts were made to settle the matter out of court, and the respondent's counsel only wrote to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal on 19 April 1999 requesting a copy of the proceedings; no copy of that request was served on the applicant. The record of proceedings was obtained on 10 July 1999. The applicant then applied to strike out the notice of appeal for failure to institute the appeal within sixty days of lodging the notice.

Issues

Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out where the respondent failed to institute the appeal within sixty days as required by rule 78 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Whether attempts to settle the matter out of court between related parties justify the failure to institute an intended appeal within the prescribed time.

Orders

Application granted.
Notice of appeal struck out.
Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Failure to Institute Appeal Within Prescribed Time — Striking Out Notice of Appeal

Where an appeal is not instituted within sixty days after the notice of appeal is lodged, as required by rule 78(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, the notice of appeal is liable to be struck out under rule 77 on the application of a person on whom it was served.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Exclusion of Time for Copy of Proceedings — Conditions Under Rule 78(2) and (3)

An appellant cannot rely on the exclusion of time under rule 78(2) for the preparation of a copy of the proceedings unless the application for the copy was made within thirty days of the decision, was in writing, and a copy of it was served on the respondent with proof of service retained; an application made over 100 days out of time and not served on the respondent does not extend the time for instituting the appeal.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Delay — Out-of-Court Settlement Attempts as Justification

Attempts by parties to settle a matter out of court, even where the parties are relatives, have no support in law as a justification for failing to institute an intended appeal within the prescribed time, although such circumstances may be relevant to an application for extension of time.

Legislation cited (4)

Rules of the Supreme Court r.77
Rules of the Supreme Court r.78(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.78(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.78(3)

Cases cited (3)

S. Mabosi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 16 of 1995)
H. Wasswa Semukutu & Company v Onyango Ochola and two others (Civil Application No. 12 of 1988)
Iron and Steel Wares Ltd v G.W. Martyrs & Co. (1956) 23 EACA 175

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.