Wakilii

African Cooperative Society v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Application No. 24 of 2001)

Court of Appeal · [2001] UGCA 44 · 2001 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out a notice of appeal from a High Court consent judgment
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 held that the High Court judgment was a consent judgment, counsel for the respondent having validly consented on the respondent's behalf to the decretal sum, and that under section 69(2) of the Civil Procedure Act no appeal lies from a decree passed with the consent of the parties. The Court further held that the notice of appeal was served on the applicant on 13 November 2000, well outside the seven days required by rule 77(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and that compliance with that rule is mandatory and cannot be cured by belated service. On either ground the intended appeal was incompetent and was struck out with costs.

Outcome

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

Facts

A dispute between the applicant society and the respondent corporation was litigated in the High Court (Civil Suit No. 35 of 1995). The respondent's counsel, Lubega-Matovu & Co. Advocates, after several adjournments to produce defence witnesses, closed the defence and, before the trial judge, negotiated and consented to a judgment of shs.204,982,685 plus interest and costs in favour of the applicant on 12 October 2000. The terms were extracted into a decree signed by the respondent's counsel. The respondent later changed counsel and unsuccessfully applied to set aside the consent judgment. Two notices of appeal were filed on the respondent's behalf, the later one on 24 October 2000 by Sempasa & Co. Advocates. That notice was served on the applicant on 13 November 2000. The applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal on grounds that the judgment was a consent judgment from which no appeal lay, and that the notice was served out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the judgment sought to be appealed against was a consent judgment from which no appeal lies under section 69(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether the notice of appeal was served on the applicant outside the time prescribed by rule 77(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, rendering the appeal incompetent.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Consent Judgments — No Appeal from Consent Decree under Section 69(2) Civil Procedure Act
No appeal lies from a decree passed by a court with the consent of the parties; where counsel, acting as an officer of the court and within authority, consents to a judgment on the decretal amount, the resulting decree is a consent decree binding on the party and not appealable under section 69(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Appeal — Mandatory Service within Seven Days — Rule 77 Court of Appeal Rules
An intended appellant must, before or within seven days after lodging a notice of appeal, serve copies on all persons directly affected by the appeal; compliance with rule 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules is mandatory, and failure to comply is not an irregularity curable by belated service, the only remedy being an application for leave to serve out of time.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Appeal — Incompetent Appeal — Proof of Injury Not Required
Where a notice of appeal is served outside the time prescribed by the rules, the applicant seeking to strike it out need not show that he suffered injury incapable of atonement in damages or that he was seriously prejudiced; the appeal is incompetent and must be struck out.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Skills Consultants v Pearl Flowers Ltd (Civil Application No. 1 of 1996)
  • Francis Nansio Micheal v Nuwa Walakira (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1994)
  • Sesan Singh Bahra v Hallins 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.

African Cooperative Society v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Application No. 24 of 2001) [2001] UGCA 44 (6 April 2001)
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.