Ssekandi v Mbabali (Constitutional Application 4 of 2015)

Supreme Court · [2017] UGSC 67 · 2017 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application by notice of motion in the Supreme Court to strike out the respondent's constitutional appeal for failure to file within the prescribed time

Decision

Application granted; respondent's notice of appeal struck out with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 applicant moved to strike out the respondent's constitutional appeal for failure to file the memorandum and record of appeal within the 50 days prescribed by rule 79(4). The Supreme Court held that once a party receives such major part of the record as enables him to ascertain the decision appealed from, he is duty-bound — especially in a constitutional matter requiring expedition under Article 137(7) — to file his appeal within the stipulated time, and may file any outstanding concurring judgment later as a supplementary record. As nearly all proceedings and four judgments were supplied by 15 October 2014, the respondent's later filing was dilatory. By a majority of 6 to 1 the application was allowed and the notice of appeal struck out with costs.

Facts

On 19 September 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the respondent's petition against the applicant. The respondent lodged a notice of appeal the same day and requested a copy of the proceedings and judgments. Between 3 and 15 October 2014 the respondent received all the record of proceedings and four of the five judgments, save a certified copy of Hon Justice Eldad Mwangusya's judgment. By letter dated 12 February 2015 the Registrar informed the respondent's counsel that the remaining judgment was ready for collection; the respondent claimed he received this letter and collected the judgment on 5 March 2015. The respondent filed his memorandum and record of appeal (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2015) on 21 April 2015. The applicant contended this was outside the 50 days prescribed by rule 79(4) and amounted to dilatory conduct; the respondent contended time ran from 5 March 2015, making his filing within 47 days.

Issues

Whether the respondent failed to file the memorandum of appeal within the time prescribed by law so as to warrant striking out his appeal with costs.

Orders

Application allowed.
Notice of appeal of the respondent struck out with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Record of Proceedings — Duty to Appeal on Receipt of Substantial Record

Once an appellant receives such a major part of the record of proceedings as enables him to ascertain the decision of the court appealed from, he is duty-bound to file his appeal within the time prescribed, and any outstanding concurring judgment may be filed later as a supplementary record.

Statutory Interpretation — Supreme Court Rules — Rule 79(4) — Meaning of 'a record of proceedings'

For the purpose of computing time to appeal under rule 79(4) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, 'a record of proceedings' means such proceedings as would enable the appealing party to ascertain what transpired in the lower court and the decision appealed from.

Constitutional Law — Constitutional Appeals — Guarantee of Expedition under Article 137(7)

Because Article 137(7) of the Constitution requires that constitutional matters be accorded a guarantee of expedition, rule 79(5) imposes both a duty on the Registrar to supply proceedings expeditiously and a corresponding duty on the appellant to be alert to receive them expeditiously.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Dilatory Conduct — Striking Out

An appellant who, having received the substantial record enabling ascertainment of the decision appealed from, fails to file his appeal within time is guilty of dilatory conduct warranting the striking out of his appeal.

Legislation cited (7)

Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.42(1)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.43(1)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.78
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.79(4)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.79(5)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.4(1)
Constitution of Uganda Article 137(7)

Cases cited (2)

The Tropical African Bank Limited Vs Grace Were Muhwan (SC) ... cited with approval in Civil Application No 3 of 2012
Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)

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.