Wakilii

Bizumutima George and Another v Niyonsaba Arthur (Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 729 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside memorandum of appeal on grounds that it was filed out of time
Decision
Application to set aside memorandum of appeal dismissed; appeal to proceed

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

Application dismissed. The court held that the memorandum of appeal filed on 24 April 2023 was within the 30-day statutory period prescribed by Section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The time taken to obtain the typed and certified record must be excluded under Section 79(2). The court accepted that the respondent received the record on 27 March 2023, four days after it was prepared on 23 March 2023, making the filing on 24 April 2023 timely. The court rejected the applicants' argument that filing the request for typed proceedings in the High Court was an error, holding that it is proper practice for the High Court Registrar to call for records from lower courts.

Outcome

Application to set aside memorandum of appeal dismissed; appeal to proceed

Facts

The respondent instituted Land Claim No. 32 of 2022 against the applicants in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Kisoro. Judgment was delivered on 7 March 2023 in favour of the applicants. On 13 March 2023, the respondent filed a notice of appeal and a letter in the High Court requesting the Deputy Registrar to call for typed and certified proceedings from the lower court. The typed record was signed on 23 March 2023. The respondent filed a memorandum of appeal on 24 April 2023. The applicants brought this application seeking to set aside the memorandum of appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time, arguing that 30 days had expired from when the typed proceedings were availed on 23 March 2023. The respondent contended that he received the record on 27 March 2023 and that the filing was therefore within time.

Issues

  1. Whether the memorandum of appeal filed on 24 April 2023 was filed out of time contrary to Section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether the time taken to obtain the typed and certified record of proceedings should be excluded in computing the limitation period under Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
  3. Whether the respondent's letter requesting typed proceedings filed in the High Court rather than the Chief Magistrate's Court constituted an error affecting the computation of time.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to meet their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Limitation Period — Exclusion of Time Taken to Prepare Record
In computing the 30-day period for filing an appeal under Section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the time taken by the court or registrar in making a copy of the decree or order appealed against and of the proceedings upon which it is founded must be excluded pursuant to Section 79(2).
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Practice and Procedure — Request for Typed Proceedings — Proper Forum
It is proper practice for an appellant to file a letter in the High Court requesting the Deputy Registrar to call for typed and certified proceedings from a lower court. The movement of court records is an internal administrative matter and counsel have no business directing lower courts to prepare and forward records directly to the higher court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Date of Receipt of Record — Burden of Proof
Where there is a dispute as to the date on which an appellant received the typed and certified record of proceedings, and the applicant seeking to set aside the appeal does not aver to a specific date of receipt, the court may accept the respondent's position on the date of receipt in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It is good practice for the recipient of a record to acknowledge receipt in writing.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Maria Onyango Ochola and Others v Hannington Wasswa (1996) HCB 43
  • China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation Ltd v Bubera General Construction Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bizumutima George and Another v Niyonsaba Arthur (Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 729 (14 July 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.