Barugare v Attorney General (Civil Application 46 of 1992)
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 applicant sought extension of time to serve the notice of appeal. The respondent objected that the application was incompetent because the appeal had been withdrawn without compliance with Rule 93 and had already been called for hearing several times before the notice of withdrawal was filed. The Court held that, although a valid withdrawal of an appeal requires compliance with all the requirements of Rule 93, such withdrawal does not debar an applicant from applying for extension of time to serve a notice of appeal, that service being a first step in instituting an appeal. The preliminary objection was overruled and the application ordered to be heard on its merits.
Outcome
Preliminary objection overruled; application for extension of time to be heard on its merits.
Facts
The applicant was the appellant in Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1992. She applied under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court for extension of time to serve the notice of appeal on the respondent, who had denied receiving and signing the notice she contended had been served. While that application (filed in December 1993) was pending, the appellant lodged a notice withdrawing the appeal on 1 February 1993, stating she did not intend to prosecute the appeal further. No copy of the notice of withdrawal was served on the respondent, the applicant contending the respondent had not supplied an address for service. When the application came on for hearing, the respondent took a preliminary objection that the application was incompetent because the appeal had been withdrawn without compliance with Rule 93 and had already been called for hearing on three occasions before the notice of withdrawal was filed.
Issues
- Whether the application for extension of time to serve the notice of appeal was incompetent for failure to comply with Rule 93 of the Rules of the Supreme Court governing withdrawal of appeals.
- Whether withdrawal of the appeal debarred the applicant from applying for extension of time to serve the notice of appeal.
Orders
- Preliminary objection overruled.
- Hearing of the merits of the application to proceed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.93
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.78
Cases cited (1)
- Haji Hurdin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1991)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.