Wakilii

Dr Ngabo Herbert Budasha v Dusabe Richard (Civil Appeal No. 008 of 2025) 2026 UGHC 554 (2026-04-16)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 554 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's judgment in a summary suit for debt recovery
Decision
Appeal struck out for non-compliance with procedural requirements

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 on procedural grounds. The appellant failed to file the amended memorandum of appeal within the time limited by court order, contrary to Order 6 Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that unlike trial courts, appellate courts do not enjoy wide inherent powers under Article 126(2)(e) or Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to cure procedural defects. Appellate jurisdiction is conferred by statute and must be exercised strictly within prescribed procedural bounds. Non-compliance with mandatory time limits cannot be excused without a fresh application.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for non-compliance with procedural requirements

Facts

The respondent Dusabe Richard sued the appellant Dr Ngabo Herbert Budasha in the Chief Magistrate's Court, Kisoro, for recovery of UGX 20,426,000 being an outstanding debt allegedly arising from a friendly loan of UGX 35,900,000 advanced on 22 June 2021. The appellant defended, alleging the transaction was not a loan but related to lost goods, and that documents were procured by duress. The Chief Magistrate found for the respondent and awarded judgment for the debt plus interest and costs. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The initial memorandum of appeal was poorly drafted. On 11 March 2026, the court granted the appellant leave to file an amended memorandum within seven days. The appellant filed the amended memorandum on 1 April 2026, nineteen days after the deadline. On the hearing date, the respondent raised preliminary objections to the late filing and to the manner in which the appeal was commenced.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant complied with the court's order granting leave to file an amended memorandum of appeal within the time stipulated.
  2. Whether an appeal improperly commenced by notice of appeal rather than memorandum of appeal is competent.
  3. Whether the High Court, sitting on appeal, has inherent jurisdiction to excuse non-compliance with procedural time limits imposed by the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appellate Practice — Amended Memorandum of Appeal — Non-Compliance with Time Limits — Order 6 Rule 25
Where a party obtains leave to file an amended memorandum of appeal within a specified time under Order 43 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, failure to comply with that time limit is governed by Order 6 Rule 25, which prohibits amendment after expiration of the limited time unless the time is extended by the court. This prohibition is absolute and admits of no exceptions.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Distinction Between Trial Courts and Appellate Courts — Article 126(2)(e) and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act
The inherent powers conferred on the High Court by Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities and to make orders necessary to meet the ends of justice apply to trial proceedings. These wide inherent powers do not extend to the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, which is strictly confined to powers conferred by statute under Article 139(1) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Statutory Conferral — Article 139(1) of the Constitution
The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court is conferred by statute under Article 139(1) of the Constitution. Acting outside the powers so conferred touches on the jurisdiction of the court and risks creating an illegality under the principle in Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga. Appellate courts must comply with the rigors of appellate practice and cannot exercise discretion to distort the legislative scheme governing appeals.

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 No. 008 of 2025) 2026 UGHC 554 (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.