Wakilii

Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd v Eddy Rodrigues [1987] UGSC 1

Supreme Court · 1987 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory appeal from a High Court ruling dismissing a preliminary objection on diplomatic immunity, with leave to appeal
Decision
Appeal struck out as incompetent, with costs to the respondent

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 struck out the appeal as incompetent on two procedural grounds: the notice of appeal was filed one day outside the fourteen-day period prescribed by r.74(2) without any leave to extend time; and the order appealed against and the order granting leave to appeal had not been extracted and filed as required by r.85(1), a substantive defect that cannot be waived. The Court also refused the appellant's application to add an omitted exhibit to the record, holding that a supplementary record under r.89 may only contain further or additional documents and cannot supply a basic document required by r.85 that was omitted from the original record.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as incompetent, with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent operated an account with the appellant Bank. On 13 October 1985 the respondent issued a cheque for shs. 85,000,000 in favour of the British High Commission as the purchase price for property at Plot 17 Princess Anne Drive, Kampala, owned by the Commission. The cheque was paid and the respondent's account debited. The Bank later, on the Commission's instructions, credited the respondent's account with the same amount. The respondent instructed the Bank to debit his account and refund the money to the Commission, but the Bank refused. The respondent sued the Bank, which raised a preliminary objection that the suit impleaded the Government of the United Kingdom and was barred by diplomatic immunity. The trial judge overruled the objection and ordered the suit to proceed, and the Bank appealed with leave. The substantive immunity question was not determined on appeal, which turned entirely on procedural competence.

Issues

  1. Whether an omitted document could be introduced into the record of appeal otherwise than by a properly filed supplementary record under r.89 of the Rules of the Court.
  2. Whether the appeal was competent where the notice of appeal was filed out of time without leave to extend time.
  3. Whether the appeal was competent where the order appealed against and the order granting leave to appeal had not been extracted and filed.

Orders

  • Application to amend the record of appeal by introducing the omitted document refused.
  • Preliminary objection that the appeal is incompetent upheld.
  • Appeal struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Supplementary Record under r.89 — Cannot Supply Omitted Basic Document
A supplementary record of appeal under r.89 may contain only further or additional documents required for the proper determination of the appeal; it supplements a defective or insufficient original record and cannot itself supply a basic document required by r.85 that was omitted from the original record, which can only be cured by leave to file out of time.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal — Lodged Out of Time Without Leave
A notice of appeal must be lodged within fourteen days of the decision under r.74(2); where it is lodged out of time and no leave to extend time has been granted, the appeal is incompetent and will be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Competence — Extraction of Decree or Order
No appeal is competent until the decree or order appealed from has been extracted and filed; this defect is substantive rather than merely procedural and cannot be waived, and can be cured only by extending the time for filing the appeal.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Rules of the Court r.85(1)
  • Rules of the Court r.85(1)(a)
  • Rules of the Court r.85(1)(f)
  • Rules of the Court r.85(1)(h)
  • Rules of the Court r.85(1)(i)
  • Rules of the Court r.89
  • Rules of the Court r.89(1)
  • Rules of the Court r.89(3)
  • Rules of the Court r.89(4)
  • Rules of the Court r.74(2)
  • Rules of the Court r.78
  • Rules of the Court r.4
  • Rules of the Court r.3
  • Rules of the Court r.72

Cases cited (3)

  • Kiboro v Posts & Telecommunications Corporation (1974) EA 155
  • Farrab Incorporated v The Official Receiver and Provisional Liquidator (1959) EA 5
  • Commissioner of Transport v Attorney General of Uganda (1959) EA 329

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd v Eddy Rodrigues [1987] UGSC 1 (2 July 1987)
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.