Wakilii

Buso Foundation Ltd v Bob Mate Philips (HCT-00- CV- CA- 0040 - 2009)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 77 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out notice and memorandum of appeal on grounds of non-compliance with time limits
Decision
Application to strike out appeal dismissed with costs

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 appeals to the High Court are governed by Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, which contain no requirement for an appellant to serve the respondent with a copy of the letter requesting the lower court's proceedings. Under section 79(2), the time taken by the court to supply the lower court's proceedings and decree is excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. The memorandum of appeal was filed within time when the excluded period was properly calculated. The application to strike out the appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Application to strike out appeal dismissed with costs

Facts

The appellant Buso Foundation Ltd applied to strike out the respondent's notice and memorandum of appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed out of time. Judgment in the lower court was entered on 15 May 2009. The respondent filed a notice of appeal on 27 May 2009 and requested the lower court's proceedings on 18 May 2009. The lower court received the request on 22 May 2009 and certified the proceedings on 28 July 2009. The memorandum of appeal was filed on 18 August 2009, approximately three months after the lower court's judgment. The appellant argued that the appeal was filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed by section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and that the respondent had failed to serve the appellant with a copy of the letter requesting the lower court's proceedings, citing a Court of Appeal decision in Nyendwoha Bigirwa. The respondent contended that the time taken by the lower court to prepare the proceedings should be excluded under section 79(2) and that there was no legal requirement to serve the request letter on the appellant in appeals to the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was filed out of time contrary to the time limits prescribed under section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether there is a legal requirement in appeals to the High Court for an appellant to serve the respondent with a copy of the letter requesting the lower court's proceedings and decree.
  3. Whether the time taken by the lower court to prepare and certify proceedings should be excluded in computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals to High Court — Time Limits — Computation of Period of Limitation
In computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal to the High Court 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 shall be excluded pursuant to section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Appeals to High Court — Service Requirements — Request for Lower Court Proceedings
In appeals to the High Court governed by Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, there is no legal requirement for an appellant to copy and serve on the respondent the letter requesting the lower court's proceedings and decree in order to benefit from the exclusion of time under section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, although the appellant may do so as a matter of courtesy.
Appeals to High Court — Commencement — Memorandum of Appeal
Every appeal to the High Court shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or the appellant's advocate and presented to the court pursuant to Order 43 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Nyendwoha Bigirwa v The Returning Officer Buliisa District and Another (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2011)
  • Ephraim Ongom and Another v Francis Benega (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1987)
  • Asadi Weke v Livingstone Oala [1985] HCB 50
  • Massa v Achen [1978] HCB 297

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Buso Foundation Ltd v Bob Mate Philips (HCT-00- CV- CA- 0040 - 2009) [2013] UGHCCD 77 (6 June 2013)
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.