Wakilii

Czeczowiczka v Markus (App. Nos. 89-1934 & 90-1934 (consolidated).)

East African Court of Appeal · [1935] EACA 96 · 1935 Appeals Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Petition to quash consolidated appeals from Court of Appeal of Eastern Africa relating to bankruptcy proceedings
Decision
Appeals quashed as incompetent due to non-compliance with mandatory security requirement

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 Privy Council held that the Court of Appeal's order requiring only nominal security of five pounds could not be reconciled with the terms of the Eastern African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council 1921, which required good and sufficient security not exceeding Rs. 7,500 as a condition precedent to appeal. The order effectively dispensed with a mandatory statutory requirement that the court had no power to waive. The appeals were quashed as incompetent.

Outcome

Appeals quashed as incompetent due to non-compliance with mandatory security requirement

Facts

Bracia Czeczowiczka sought to appeal to the Privy Council from four judgments of the Court of Appeal of Eastern Africa relating to bankruptcy proceedings against Otto Markus and Rudolf Loy. The Court of Appeal granted conditional leave to appeal on June 14, 1934, ordering security of only five pounds based on the fact that the respondents were judgment debtors of the appellants for a large sum. The Eastern African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council 1921 required appellants to enter into good and sufficient security not exceeding Rs. 7,500 for due prosecution of the appeal and payment of costs. Final leave to appeal was granted on September 13, 1934. The petitioners challenged the appeals as incompetent, arguing that the nominal security order dispensed with a condition precedent prescribed by the Order in Council.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa had jurisdiction to order nominal security of five pounds where the Order in Council required security not exceeding Rs. 7,500 for due prosecution of the appeal and payment of costs.
  2. Whether the order dispensing with substantial security constituted a failure to comply with a condition precedent to the appeal, rendering the appeals incompetent.

Orders

  • Petition allowed.
  • Appeals quashed.
  • Order made without prejudice to any application the appellants might be advised to make for special leave to appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Security for Costs — Statutory Requirements
Where an Order in Council prescribes that leave to appeal shall only be granted upon condition of the appellant entering into good and sufficient security for costs, that requirement is a condition precedent to the appeal which the court has no jurisdiction to dispense with or reduce to a nominal amount.
Administrative Law — Statutory Interpretation — Mandatory Requirements — Judicial Discretion
A court cannot lawfully make an order that has the effect of dispensing with the performance of a statutory condition precedent, even where the court considers there are good reasons for doing so based on the circumstances of the parties.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Incompetent Appeals — Quashing for Non-Compliance
Where an appeal has been brought without compliance with a statutory condition precedent relating to security for costs, the appeal is incompetent and must be quashed, though without prejudice to the appellant's right to apply for special leave to appeal.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Eastern African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council 1921 s.6

Cases cited (2)

  • Ohene Moore v Akesseh Tayee [1935] AC 72
  • In re The Contract and Agency Corporation (Limited) (1888) 57 LJ Ch 5

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Czeczowiczka v Markus (App. Nos. 89-1934 & 90-1934 (consolidated).) [1935] EACA 96 (1 January 1935)
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.