Wakilii

Dr. Ngabo Herbert Budasha v Dusabe Richard (Civil Appeal 8 of 2025) 2026 UGHC 556 (2026-04-16)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 556 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment in a debt recovery suit
Decision
Appeal struck out for non-compliance with court directions on filing amended memorandum

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 High Court struck out the appeal for non-compliance with procedural requirements. The appellant failed to file the amended memorandum of appeal within the time limited by court order. Order 6 Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules absolutely prohibits amendment outside the time permitted by court without exception. Unlike trial courts, appellate courts cannot invoke inherent powers under Article 126(2)(e) or Section 98 to cure procedural defects. Appellate jurisdiction is confined to powers expressly conferred by statute. The appellant's failure to comply with the court's directions could not be excused.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for non-compliance with court directions on filing amended memorandum

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment in the Chief Magistrate's Court for recovery of UGX 20,426,000 allegedly owed by the appellant under a friendly loan agreement. The appellant appealed to the High Court. At the first hearing on March 5, 2026, the court found the original memorandum of appeal poorly drafted and granted leave to file an amended memorandum. On March 11, 2026, the court directed that the amended memorandum be filed and served by March 18, 2026. The appellant filed the amended memorandum on April 1, 2026, fourteen days late. At the appeal hearing on April 16, 2026, the respondent raised preliminary objections to the late filing and to the manner in which the appeal was commenced. Counsel for the appellant conceded the late filing but sought to excuse it on the basis of delays in obtaining the record of proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the amended memorandum of appeal was properly filed within the time prescribed by court order.
  2. Whether the appeal was properly commenced by notice of appeal rather than memorandum of appeal.
  3. Whether the appellant's non-compliance with procedural rules could be excused in the interests of substantive justice.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Amendment of Memorandum — Time Limits — Order 6 Rule 25
Where a party obtains leave to amend a memorandum of appeal and the court order specifies a time limit for filing, Order 6 Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules absolutely prohibits amendment after the expiration of that time unless the time is extended by court.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Inherent Powers — Distinction from Trial Courts
Appellate courts do not enjoy the same inherent powers as trial courts to cure procedural defects under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution or Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act. Appellate jurisdiction is confined to powers expressly conferred by statute under Article 139(1) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Non-Compliance with Court Orders — Jurisdiction — Makula Principle
Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements creates an illegality that cannot be cured by discretionary invocation of substantive justice principles. Acting outside statutory powers touches on the jurisdiction of the court.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr. Ngabo Herbert Budasha v Dusabe Richard (Civil Appeal 8 of 2025) 2026 UGHC 556 (2026-04-16)
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.