Byeitima & 2 Ors v Asaba (Civil Application No.264 of 2013)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The applicants sought to strike out the respondent's notice of appeal for late service and for lodging the appeal one day outside the sixty-day period. The Court held that, since the record was prepared at the High Court where Order 51 r.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies, the Christmas vacation period should be discounted in reckoning time, so the appeal was lodged within time. Relying on Kasaala Growers, and noting the intended appeal raised that the respondent was condemned unheard, the Court found it in the interest of justice that parties exhaust their right to appeal. The application was dismissed and the appeal directed to be fixed for hearing.

Outcome

Application dismissed; appeal to proceed to hearing on its merits

Facts

The respondent filed a notice of appeal on 26 February 2013 against the judgment in High Court Civil Suit No. 0024 of 2010. The applicants applied to strike it out, contending it was served on their advocates out of time (on 18 March 2013) and that more than sixty days had elapsed without prosecuting the appeal. The respondent contended service occurred on 14 March 2013 within seven days of the notice being sealed on 7 March 2013, and that the record and Registrar's certificate were issued on 20 December 2013, with the appeal lodged on 21 February 2014. The applicants asserted this was one day out of time. The Court noted discrepancies between two certificates of correctness (dated 18 and 20 December 2013) and considered the effect of the Christmas vacation on reckoning time. The intended appeal complained that the trial Judge relied on a surveyors' report without calling evidence, leaving the respondent condemned unheard.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent's notice of appeal dated 26 February 2013 against the judgment in Civil Suit No. 0024 of 2010 is liable to be struck out for failure to serve within time and failure to take essential steps within sixty days.
2. How costs of the application should be borne.

Orders

• Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed.
• The appeal to be fixed for hearing.
• Costs of this application shall abide the results of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.78(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.82
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.43(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.44(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 r.4
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(1)(e)

Cases cited (1)

• Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Jonathan and Another (Civil Application No. 24 of 2010)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Mawa Aziz Ibrahim v ATC Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2426 of 2024)
• Kiboko Enterprises Limited v Kimbugwe (Miscellaneous Application 139 of 2023)
• Ssemakula v Asiimwe (Civil Reference 4 of 2023)
• Kiboko Enterprise Limited v Kimbugwe (Miscellaneous Application 139 of 2023)

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