Wakilii

Attorney General v Okello and 21283 Others (Civil Appeal 92 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 598 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Deputy Registrar of the High Court made in Miscellaneous Application No. 224 of 2022
Decision
Appeal struck out for being filed out of time without obtaining leave of court

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 held that an appeal from a Deputy Registrar of the High Court must be filed by motion on notice under Order 50 rule 8, not by endorsement under Order 48 rule 7, which applies only to appeals from district registrars. The court further held that such appeals must be filed within seven days of the registrar's order under Section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act. The appeal, filed 17 days after the order without leave, was struck out for being filed out of time.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for being filed out of time without obtaining leave of court

Facts

In 2006, Adyera Nobert and others obtained a representative order to sue the Attorney General on behalf of 1,700 persons claiming compensation for livestock allegedly confiscated by government soldiers between 1986 and 1996. In 2008, the parties entered into a consent settlement. In 2022, Galdino Moro Okello and 21,283 others filed Miscellaneous Application No. 224 of 2022 seeking directions on the execution of the consent settlement, alleging defects in the verification process and premature payments to suspected ghost claimants. On 20 October 2022, the Deputy Registrar allowed the application and ordered harmonization of verification reports and appointment of a forensic auditor. The Attorney General appealed the Deputy Registrar's decision by Notice of Motion filed on 7 November 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the procedure for appealing against the decision of a Deputy Registrar is by way of endorsement upon the record under Order 48 rule 7 or by Notice of Motion under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the appeal was filed within time as required by Section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Appeal from Deputy Registrar — Distinction between Deputy Registrar and District Registrar
A Deputy Registrar of a High Court Circuit is distinct from a district registrar under Order 48 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The procedure for appealing from a district registrar by way of endorsement upon the record under Order 48 rule 7 does not apply to appeals from a Deputy Registrar of the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Procedure for Appeal from Registrar — Motion on Notice
An appeal from an order made by a Deputy Registrar of the High Court lies under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules by motion on notice and not by endorsement upon the record.
Civil Procedure — Limitation of Time — Appeal from Order of Registrar — Seven Day Period
An appeal from an order of a registrar must be filed within seven days from the date of the order under Section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act. Where an appeal is not filed within seven days, leave must be sought to appeal out of time, and without such leave the appeal is incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Limitation of Time — Nature of Statutes of Limitation — Strict Compliance Required
Time limits set by statutes are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with. Statutes of limitation are strict and inflexible enactments whose overriding purpose is that litigation shall be automatically stifled after a fixed length of time, irrespective of the merits of the particular case.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (7)

  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v The East African Law Society and another (East African Court of Justice Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Wilson Milton Were and another v Lawrence Katende (High Court Misc. Application No. 074 of 2020)
  • Murangwa Bruno and Another v Luyimbazi James (High Court Misc. Appeal No. 0016 of 2019)
  • Birihariirwee Eryeza v Bright Tom Amooti (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0042 of 2022)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2000)
  • Re Application by Mustapha Ramathan (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1996)
  • Hilton Vs Stton Steam Laundry [1946] 1 page 81

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Okello and 21283 Others (Civil Appeal 92 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 598 (9 July 2024)
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.