Wakilii

Kyobe v Gatete and Another [2006] UGSC 11

Supreme Court · 2006 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 time
Decision
Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed; the appeal held to have been filed within time

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 Supreme Court held that a Registrar's letter merely stating that the record of proceedings was ready for collection is not the certification required by Rule 78(2), where the record was not in fact ready and was not delivered. Certification requires both a certificate of the time taken to prepare the record and actual delivery to the appellant. The proper certification was the Registrar's certificate of 6 June 2005; the record was delivered on 4 April 2005 and time ran from then. As the 60th day fell on a public holiday, section 34 of the Interpretation Act allowed filing on the next working day, so the memorandum of appeal filed on 6 June 2005 was in time. The application was dismissed.

Facts

Following a Court of Appeal judgment delivered on 3 November 2004 in favour of the applicant, the respondents filed a notice of appeal on 4 November 2004 and on the same day requested a copy of the court proceedings. On 15 March 2005 the Court of Appeal Registrar wrote informing the respondents' counsel that the record was ready for collection. According to the respondents' law clerk, when he attended the registry he was repeatedly told the record was not in fact ready, and it was only certified and delivered to him on 4 April 2005. The Registrar later issued a certificate dated 6 June 2005 certifying that preparation of the record had taken until 4 April 2005. The applicant filed this application on 20 May 2005 to strike out the notice of appeal, contending the appeal lodged on 6 June 2005 was out of the 60-day period because time should run from the 15 March 2005 letter.

Issues

  1. Whether the Registrar's letter of 15 March 2005 stating that the record of proceedings was ready for collection constituted the certification required by Rule 78(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the appeal was instituted within the 60 days required by Rule 78(1), having regard to the exclusion of time under Rule 78(2) and the computation of time under section 34 of the Interpretation Act.
  3. Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out and an order made that no appeal lies.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Certification of record under Rule 78(2) of the Supreme Court Rules
A letter from the Registrar of the Court of Appeal stating that the record of proceedings is ready for collection is not the certification required by Rule 78(2) where the record is not in fact ready and is not delivered to the appellant; valid certification requires both a certificate of the time taken to prepare the record and its actual delivery to the appellant.
Civil Procedure — Computation of time for instituting an appeal
Where time is excluded under Rule 78(2) pending certification, the period for instituting an appeal runs from the date the record was certified and delivered, and where the last day of that period falls on a Sunday or public holiday, section 34(1)(b) and (c) of the Interpretation Act allows the act to be done on the next working day.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.41
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.77
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.78(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.78(2)
  • Interpretation Act s.34(1)(b)
  • Interpretation Act s.34(1)(c)
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.