Construction Engineers and Builders Limited v Attorney General (Civil Application 84 of 2001)

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 Court considered an application to strike out the Attorney General's notice of appeal on the ground that essential steps had not been taken within the prescribed time. Under rule 82 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal, an intending appellant may only extend the sixty-day period by applying in writing for a copy of proceedings, serving it on the respondent and retaining proof of service. The provisions of rule 82(3) are mandatory. The respondent failed to prove that such a request was made, served and proof retained. The Court criticised the respondent's dilatory conduct and delay, and allowed the application, striking out the notice of appeal with costs to the applicant.

Outcome

Notice of appeal struck out with costs to the applicant

Facts

The Attorney General lodged a notice of appeal in the High Court on 28 December 2000 against a ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 588 of 1999. The applicant's advocates conducted a search of the Commercial Court file and found no application for a copy of the proceedings. The applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal on the ground that the intending appellant had not instituted the appeal within sixty days and could not rely on rule 82(3) because there was no evidence of a written request for proceedings served on the respondent. The respondent filed no affidavit in reply until nearly four years later, in which counsel deponed that he had drafted a notice of appeal, requested proceedings and personally served the applicant's counsel. The applicant challenged the affidavit as late, incompetent and containing falsehoods, noting the advocates' chambers were closed at Christmas and the named advocate was abroad at the relevant time.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent's notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to institute the appeal within the prescribed time.
2. Whether the intending appellant could rely on rule 82(3) by proving that a written request for the record of proceedings was made and served on the respondent.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• Notice of appeal struck out.
• Costs to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.50
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.81
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.82(1)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.82(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.82(3)

Cases cited (3)

• John Matsiko v Banyankole Kweterana Co-operative Society Ltd (Civil Application No. 43 of 1998)
• Bagumisa v Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 9 of 2000)
• Dr. S.B. Kinyatta & Another v Suburamania Rajha Gopalan & Another (Civil Application No. 1000 of 2000)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Wanume David Katamirike v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appl No. 138 of 2010)

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