Wakilii

Sadrudin v Kamya (Civil Application 15 of 2013)

Supreme Court · [2014] UGSC 410 · 2014 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out an appeal for failure to take an essential step in the proceedings
Decision
Application to strike out the appeal dismissed; the appeal stands

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 8 (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

On an application to strike out an appeal for failure to take essential steps, the Supreme Court held that an order extending the time within which to lodge a notice of appeal automatically extends the time within which to request the record of proceedings, so the respondent's request was made in time. Faced with two conflicting Registrar's certificates, the Court accepted the later certificate (24 October 2013) as validly issued, there being no evidence of forgery. The appeal, filed on 3 December 2013, was therefore within the 60 days running from receipt of the proceedings. The respondent was not guilty of dilatory conduct and had taken all essential steps. The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant obtained judgment against the respondent in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2006, decided on 1 June 2011. The respondent, having been unaware of the judgment, obtained an extension of time and lodged a notice of appeal on 21 July 2011, simultaneously requesting the record of proceedings and serving a copy on the applicant's counsel. The Registrar of the Court of Appeal issued a certificate dated 23 August 2013 stating the proceedings were ready for collection on payment, and a second certificate dated 24 October 2013 stating preparation was completed, paid for and collected on that date. The respondent filed his appeal on 3 December 2013 and served the applicant on 20 December 2013. The applicant contended the request for proceedings was out of time and that the appeal was filed after the 60-day period had lapsed, alleging dilatory conduct and that the later certificate may be a forgery, though no supporting evidence was produced.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent failed to apply for a copy of the record of proceedings within the prescribed time.
  2. Whether the respondent filed his appeal within 60 days of the record of proceedings being ready, so as to avoid being struck out for failure to take an essential step.
  3. Whether the respondent was guilty of dilatory conduct in prosecuting his appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of time to lodge notice of appeal — Effect on time to request record of proceedings
An order extending the time within which to lodge a notice of appeal automatically extends the time within which to apply for the record of proceedings, so a request for proceedings made within the extended period is made in time for the purposes of Rule 79(2) of the Supreme Court Rules.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Computation of time — Registrar's certificate of completion of proceedings
Where the time required for preparation of the record of proceedings is excluded under Rule 79(2), the 60-day period for instituting the appeal runs from the date on which the certified copies of proceedings are completed and delivered to the appellant, as evidenced by the Registrar's certificate.
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Allegation of forgery of a court document — Burden of proof
An allegation that a Registrar's certificate is a forgery must be substantiated by evidence; where conflicting certificates exist but no evidence of forgery is produced and a satisfactory explanation is given, the court will accept the certificate as validly issued.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42
  • Supreme Court Rules r.43
  • Supreme Court Rules r.45
  • Supreme Court Rules r.72(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.72(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.78
  • Supreme Court Rules r.79(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.79(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.79(3)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.80
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.