Wakilii

All Muss Properties Uganda ltd & 2 Ors v CTM (U) Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 379 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 134 · 2019 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 on the ground that an essential step (seeking leave to appeal) was not taken within the prescribed time
Decision
Application allowed; Notice of Appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the applicants

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases applied in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 0 cases and applied in 1 case, with no adverse treatment recorded. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that although a notice of appeal may be filed without first obtaining leave, an intended appellant must apply for leave to appeal within 14 days of the impugned decision as required by rule 40(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules. Where leave is required but not sought within time, the failure constitutes failure to take an essential step, rendering the notice of appeal incompetent. The respondents applied for leave 35 days after the ruling, well beyond the prescribed period. The lacuna in Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules as to time is cured by rule 40(2)(a). The Court struck out the incompetent notice of appeal with costs.

Outcome

Application allowed; Notice of Appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the applicants

Facts

On 25 October 2017, the High Court (Commercial Division) dismissed the applicants' Miscellaneous Application No. 904 of 2015, which sought to set aside a consent judgment between the applicants and the first respondent and consequential transfers. The respondents, being dissatisfied, filed a Notice of Appeal in the High Court the same day, 25 October 2017, and requested a copy of the proceedings. The decision was one whose appeal lay only with leave of court. The applicants filed the present application in the Court of Appeal on 20 November 2017 to strike out the Notice of Appeal for failure to seek leave within the prescribed time. The respondents subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal on 28 November 2017 — 35 days after the ruling — which was fixed for hearing in the High Court. The respondents argued failure to seek leave in time did not warrant striking out and that Order 44 fixed no time limit for seeking leave.

Issues

  1. Whether the citing of a wrong provision of the law renders the application incompetent.
  2. Whether the respondents took an essential step in the proceedings by seeking leave to appeal within the prescribed time of 14 days.
  3. Whether the Notice of Appeal should be struck out for failure to take an essential step within the prescribed time.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The Notice of Appeal is found incompetent and is accordingly struck out.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Failure to Seek Leave Within Prescribed Time as Failure to Take an Essential Step
Although a notice of appeal may be filed before obtaining leave to appeal, an intended appellant must apply for the required leave within 14 days of the decision under rule 40(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules; failure to do so amounts to failure to take an essential step in the proceedings, rendering the notice of appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Time Limits — Lacuna in Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules Cured by Rule 40(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Where Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not prescribe a time within which to file an application for leave to appeal, the lacuna is cured by rule 40(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which fixes the time at 14 days from the decision.
Pleadings — Citation of Wrong Provision — Effect on Competence of Application
Citing a wrong provision of the law, or failing to cite the provision under which redress is sought, is a technicality that should not obstruct the cause of justice and may be ignored under article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution; it does not affect the competence of the application.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Andrew Maviri v Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 274 of 2014)
  • Hwangsung Ltd v M&D Timber Merchants and Transporters Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2016)
  • Sylvester Byaruhanga v Fr. Emmanuel Ruvugwaho and Another (Civil Application No. 228 of 2014)
  • Alcon International Ltd vs The New Vision Publishing Co. Ltd & 2 ors
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • Bakaluba Mukasa Peter and Another v Nalugo Mary Margret Sekiziyivu (Election Petition Application No. 24 of 2011)
  • Dr. Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010)
  • Makhangu vs Kibwana [1995-1998]1 EA175

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

All Muss Properties Uganda ltd & 2 Ors Vs CTM (U) Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 379 of 2017) [2019] UGCA 134 (25 April 2019)
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.