Wakilii

Amrit Goyal vs Harichand Goyal and 3 others (Civil Application No. 109 of 2004)

Court of Appeal · [2008] UGCA 6 · 2008 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to strike out a notice and memorandum of appeal for failure to deposit further security for costs as ordered
Decision
Application allowed; Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2004 struck out with costs to the applicant

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 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 3 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 33 citing cases on record, 14 in the most recent three data years. 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 the single justice's order required the respondents to deposit security for costs by 29 May 2004, and could not be read to permit deposit at any time before the appeal was heard. The respondents' payment on 20 August 2004 was out of time, and they never applied for enlargement of time. A court order is not a mere technicality; failure to obey it cannot be cured under article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution or rule 2(2). The Winnie Babihuga decision was distinguished as involving non-payment of court fees rather than breach of a condition precedent. The respondents having failed to take an essential step under rule 82, the appeal was struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application allowed; Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2004 struck out with costs to the applicant

Facts

The applicant obtained judgment against the respondents in High Court Civil Suit No. 432 of 2001. The respondents filed Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2004. On the applicant's application, a single justice (Byamugisha, JA) ordered on 29 April 2004 that the respondents deposit UGX 80,525,500 as security for costs within thirty days and in any event before the hearing date, which had already been fixed for 18 May 2004. The respondents did not deposit the money by the thirty-day deadline of 29 May 2004; the appeal was adjourned on 18 May 2004 without any application to vary the order. The respondents deposited the money on 20 August 2004 and never applied for enlargement of time. The applicant then applied to strike out the appeal for failure to comply with the order. The Court noted that the respondents relied on affidavit and conferencing statements falsely stating the hearing had been fixed for 29 May 2004 rather than 18 May 2004.

Issues

  1. What was the meaning and effect of the single justice's order requiring the respondents to deposit security for costs within thirty days.
  2. Whether late deposit of security for costs after the ordered deadline rectified the respondents' non-compliance.
  3. Whether failure to comply with a court order requiring security for costs is a mere technicality curable under article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and rule 2(2) of the Rules.
  4. Whether the appeal should be struck out under rule 82 for failure to take an essential step.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2004 struck out.
  • Costs of this application in this court and in the High Court awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Interpretation of Order Fixing Time for Deposit
An order requiring deposit of security for costs within thirty days 'and in any event before the hearing date' must be interpreted to require deposit by the expiry of the thirty days, and cannot be read as permitting deposit at any time before the appeal is heard, as that would allow indefinite delay of the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Compliance with Court Orders — Effect of Late Payment
A court order must be obeyed as ordered unless set aside or varied; where the deposit of further security for costs is a condition precedent, late payment does not rectify the non-compliance, and the party's remedy is to apply for enlargement of time.
Civil Procedure — Technicalities — Non-Applicability of Article 126(2)(e) to Breach of Court Order
Failure or refusal to comply with a court order is not a mere technical rule of procedure and cannot be cured under article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution or rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules; court orders must be respected and complied with.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Appeal — Failure to Take Essential Step under Rule 82
Where a party refuses to obey an order to deposit security for costs, it fails to take an essential step prescribed by rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules, and the appeal may be struck out.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

  • Winnie Babihuga v Winnie Matsiko (Election Petition No. 13 of 2002)

Cases citing this judgment (25)

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.

Amrit Goyal vs Harichand Goyal and 3 others (Civil Application No. 109 of 2004) [2008] UGCA 6 (7 August 2008)
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.