Wakilii

Biraze Bugembe John Baptist v Makanga Ibrahim and Another (Miscellaneous Application 52 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1275 · 2025 Application Granted — Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out and dismiss an appeal for failure to serve memorandum of appeal and want of prosecution
Decision
Appeal dismissed for failure to serve memorandum of appeal and want of prosecution

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 High Court held that an appeal is incompetent where the appellants fail to serve the memorandum of appeal within the prescribed 21-day period under Order 5 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court further held that an appeal dormant for nearly two years without any step taken by appellants to prosecute it amounts to want of prosecution and abuse of court process, warranting dismissal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for failure to serve memorandum of appeal and want of prosecution

Facts

The Applicant filed an application seeking to strike out and dismiss an appeal (HCT-06-LD-CA-0052-2023) filed by the Respondents. The Respondents had filed their appeal on 29 November 2023 but allegedly failed to serve the Applicant with the Notice and Memorandum of Appeal. By the time the application was filed on 23 July 2024, nearly eight months had passed without service. The appeal remained dormant for nearly two years with no steps taken by the Appellants to have it listed for hearing. The Respondents, though present in court, were unrepresented and failed to file written submissions as directed by the court.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents served the applicant with the Notice and Memorandum of Appeal as required by law.
  2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay.

Orders

  • HCT-06-LD-CA-0052-2023 is hereby dismissed.
  • The costs of the appeal and for this application shall be borne by the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Service of Memorandum of Appeal — Time Limits
A memorandum of appeal must be served within 21 days as prescribed under Order 5 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which applies by necessary implication through Order 49 Rule 2 to the service of all orders, notices, and documents in appeals.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Service of Process — Effect of Non-Service
Failure to serve a memorandum of appeal renders the appeal incompetent, as service of process is intended to preserve the inviolable right to fair hearing and to avoid trial by ambush.
Civil Procedure — Service — Proof of Service — Affidavit of Service
Proof of service upon a party is established through an affidavit of service sworn by the officer who effected service and duly placed on the court record.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Want of Prosecution — Dismissal
An appeal that remains dormant for nearly two years without any step being taken by the appellants to prosecute it constitutes inordinate delay inconsistent with the duty to diligently pursue an appeal and amounts to an abuse of court process warranting dismissal for want of prosecution.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Kacaca v Byarugaba (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2022)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Biraze Bugembe John Baptist v Makanga Ibrahim and Another (Miscellaneous Application 52 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 1275 (7 November 2025)
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.