Asingwire Alex Willy and Biryabarema Deo v Rwakoojo Grace (Civil Appeal No. 340 of 2019)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal struck out a first appeal because the grounds in the memorandum of appeal failed the requirement of conciseness. Applying Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules and Order 43 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court held that the grounds were unnecessarily wordy and argumentative, and that the substance of two grounds could not even be understood. Such defective grounds are incompetent and liable to be struck out, the rules going to the root of substantive justice rather than being mere technicalities curable under article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. The court declined to hear the appeal and struck it out with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for incompetent grounds, with no order as to costs

Facts

The appellants and the respondent jointly bought a Toyota Hiace motor vehicle (UAJ 579K) from Chatha Investments (U) Ltd for business. They paid UGX 11,300,000 cash and left a balance of UGX 10,500,000 payable in due course. The appellants alleged that the respondent took the vehicle from the seller and began operating it without their knowledge. On discovery, they complained to police and the vehicle was handed over to them, but it was impounded before they had cleared the balance or made any profit. They sued the respondent in the High Court at Fort Portal and lost, the trial judge finding no partnership and condemning them to pay general damages and costs. They appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court did not reach the merits of the dispute, disposing of the matter on the form of the grounds of appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal complied with the requirement of conciseness under Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules and Order 43 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Whether the appeal could competently proceed given the form of the grounds of appeal.

Orders

• Appeal struck out.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Court of Appeal Rules Rule 30(1)
• Court of Appeal Rules Rule 86
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 1(2)
• Constitution of Uganda article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (5)

• Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
• Baguma v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
• National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Air Services (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2003)
• Ranchhodbhai Shirabhai Patel Ltd and Another v Henry Wambuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017)
• Gaba Beach Hotel Ltd v Cairo International Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 34 of 2003)

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