Wakilii

Afric Cooperative Society v Uganda Railway Cooperation (Civil Application 24 of 2001)

Court of Appeal · [2004] UGCA 29 · 2004 Application Granted — Notice of Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out a notice of appeal under rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Decision
Notice of appeal struck out as incompetent, with costs to the applicant

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 Court of Appeal struck out the respondent's notice of appeal on two grounds. First, the judgment appealed against was a consent judgment on the quantum of damages, entered by counsel who was duly instructed and acted within his authority; under section 69(2) of the Civil Procedure Act no appeal lies from a decree passed with the consent of the parties, and the judgment binds the respondent. Second, the notice of appeal was served on the applicant on 13 November 2000, almost two weeks after the deadline of 31 October 2000 under rule 77(1). Compliance with rule 77 is mandatory and failure cannot be cured by belated service; the appeal was therefore incompetent.

Outcome

Notice of appeal struck out as incompetent, with costs to the applicant

Facts

In High Court Civil Suit No. 35 of 1995 between Afric Co-operative Society and Uganda Railways Corporation, the respondent's counsel repeatedly failed to produce witnesses despite several adjournments. At the final hearing on 12 October 2000, counsel for the respondent closed the defence and indicated he would dispute only the quantum of damages. Both counsel negotiated and the trial judge entered a consent judgment for shs.204,882,685 in favour of the plaintiff/applicant, plus interest and costs, extracted into a decree signed by respondent's counsel. The respondent later changed counsel and applied unsuccessfully to set aside the consent judgment. Two notices of appeal were filed on behalf of the respondent (18 October 2000 and 24 October 2000). The notice was served on the applicant on 13 November 2000. The applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal on the grounds that no appeal lies from a consent judgment and that the notice was served out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal lies from a consent judgment under section 69(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out for having been served on the applicant outside the time prescribed by rule 77(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Orders

  • The appeal is incompetent and is accordingly struck out.
  • Costs to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — No Appeal from Consent Judgment — Civil Procedure Act s.69(2)
No appeal lies from a decree passed by a court with the consent of the parties, and where counsel duly instructed and acting within his authority consents to judgment, that consent judgment binds the client and precludes an appeal under section 69(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Service of Notice of Appeal — Mandatory Time Limit under Rule 77
Compliance with rule 77(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules requiring service of a notice of appeal on all persons directly affected within seven days is mandatory; failure to serve within time is not an irregularity curable by belated service, and renders the appeal incompetent, the only remedy being an application for leave to serve out of time.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Incompetent Notice — No Requirement to Show Prejudice
An applicant seeking to strike out a notice of appeal served out of time need not show that he has suffered injury which cannot be atoned for in damages or that he has been seriously prejudiced; failure to serve within the mandatory period alone renders the appeal incompetent.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Skills Consultants v Pearl Flowers Ltd (Civil Application No. 4 of 1996)
  • Francis Nansio Micha v Nuwa Walakira (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1994)
  • Sovan Singh Rubra v Bellina Manzoor (Miscellaneous Application No. 27 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Afric Cooperative Society v Uganda Railway Cooperation (Civil Application 24 of 2001) [2004] UGCA 29 (30 April 2004)
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.