Ssemakula v Asiimwe (Civil Reference 4 of 2023)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 22 · 2023 Reference Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil reference to a bench of three Justices from the ruling of a single Justice of the Supreme Court refusing extension of time and striking out the appeal.

Decision

Reference allowed; single Justice's order striking out the appeal set aside as a nullity; the application to strike out the appeal (Civil Application No. 016 of 2022) referred to the fully constituted bench together with the appeal.

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

On a reference to the full bench, the Supreme Court held that a single Justice has no jurisdiction under section 8 of the Judicature Act, and is expressly barred by rule 50(2)(c), to strike out an appeal, because such an application is not an interlocutory matter; the single Justice's order striking out the appeal was therefore a nullity and was set aside. The Court further held that 'Christmas vacation' under rule 4(e), being undefined in the Rules, takes the most proximate meaning in Order 51 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (24 December to 15 January). Excluding those days, the appeal had been filed within the 60 days under rule 79. The reference succeeded with costs.

Facts

The appellant requested the record of proceedings, which was availed to his counsel on 2 December 2021. He lodged his appeal in the Supreme Court on 15 February 2022. The respondent filed Civil Application No. 016 of 2022 to strike out the appeal as filed outside the 60-day limit under rule 79, while the appellant filed Civil Application No. 018 of 2022 for extension of time to validate the appeal. Sitting as a single Justice, Hon. Justice Mike Chibita consolidated the applications, found the appeal filed out of time, dismissed the extension application and struck out the appeal, treating only the public holidays of 25 and 26 December and 1 January as excluded days. The appellant referred the matter to a bench of three Justices, challenging the single Justice's jurisdiction to strike out an appeal and his computation of time, particularly his treatment of the Christmas vacation under rule 4(e) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether a single Justice of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to strike out an appeal.
Whether rule 50(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court is void to the extent it conflicts with section 8 of the Judicature Act.
What is meant by 'Christmas vacation' under rule 4(e) of the Rules of the Supreme Court for the purpose of computing time.
Whether the appellant's appeal was lodged within the 60-day period prescribed by rule 79.

Orders

The reference is allowed.
The decision of the single Justice striking out the appeal in Civil Application No. 016 of 2022 is set aside as a nullity and of no effect.
Civil Application No. 018 of 2022 is struck out with no order as to costs.
Civil Application No. 016 of 2022 shall be placed before the fully constituted bench of the Supreme Court for final resolution together with the appeal.
The appellant's reference succeeds with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Single Justice of the Supreme Court — Jurisdiction to Strike Out an Appeal

A single Justice of the Supreme Court may exercise the powers of the court only in an interlocutory cause or matter under section 8(1) of the Judicature Act; an application to strike out an appeal is not interlocutory and is expressly excluded by rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules of the Court, so a single Justice has no jurisdiction to entertain or determine it.

Statutory Interpretation — Conflict Between an Act of Parliament and Subsidiary Legislation

An Act of Parliament overrides any subsidiary legislation in conflict with it; to the extent that rule 50(2) of the Rules of the Court conflicts with section 8 of the Judicature Act by limiting the interlocutory powers conferred on a single Justice, the rule is void.

Civil Procedure — Computation of Time — Meaning of 'Christmas Vacation' under Rule 4(e)

The term 'Christmas vacation' in rule 4(e) of the Rules of the Supreme Court is undefined; the most proximate definition, that of Order 51 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (24 December to 15 January, both days inclusive), is borrowed as reflecting the customary Christmas vacation period which, unless the Court otherwise directs, is not to be reckoned in computing time.

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Decision Without Jurisdiction is a Nullity

A decision made by a court or judge without jurisdiction is a nullity and of no effect, and an illegality once brought to the attention of the court cannot be condoned.

Legislation cited (17)

Judicature Act Cap 13 s.8
Judicature Act Cap 13 s.41
Constitution art.132(2)
Constitution art.129
Rules of the Supreme Court (Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions) rule 4(e)
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 4(b)
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 50
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 79
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 21
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 110(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 3(g)
Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 rule 4
Civil Procedure Rules rule 2
Civil Procedure Act s.1
Civil Procedure Act s.2(b)
Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules rule 2
Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules rule 3

Cases cited (3)

Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
Prof Syed Huq v Islamic University in Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1995)
Byeitima and 2 Others v Asaba (Civil Appeal No. 264 of 2013)

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.