Wakilii

Dr. Ngabo Herbert Budasha v Dusabe Richard (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 015 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 637 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file an amended memorandum of appeal after the original memorandum was struck out
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 dismissed an application for extension of time to file an amended memorandum of appeal after the original memorandum had been struck out. The court held that once a memorandum of appeal is struck out, no appeal exists. The High Court's inherent powers under Article 126(2)(e) and Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act apply only when sitting as a trial court, not as an appellate court. Granting the application would violate res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant sought extension of time to file an amended memorandum of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 008 of 2025. The original memorandum of appeal had been struck out on May 20, 2026 due to the applicant's failure to timely file an amended memorandum after leave to amend had been granted under Order 43 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant argued that the striking out was due to inadvertence and mistake of counsel and that such mistake should not be visited on the litigant. The respondent contended that no appeal existed after the memorandum was struck out. Parties argued the application orally on June 11, 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court sitting as an appellate court has power to grant extension of time to file an amended memorandum of appeal after the original memorandum was struck out.
  2. Whether the application contravenes the doctrine of res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Effect of Striking Out Memorandum of Appeal
When a memorandum of appeal is struck out by court order, no appeal exists anymore and the proceedings in that appeal are closed.
Civil Procedure — High Court Powers — Distinction Between Trial and Appellate Jurisdiction
The High Court's inherent powers under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to enlarge time and cure procedural defects are enjoyed by the High Court as a trial court, not when sitting as an appellate court.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Application to Amendment of Memorandum of Appeal
Once the High Court has exercised its powers under Order 43 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to grant leave to amend a memorandum of appeal and the applicant fails to comply with the scope and time of such amendment, revisiting those closed proceedings would violate the rule of res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Limits on Repeated Applications
While courts liberally grant leave to amend defective pleadings, the opportunity to cure defects is given once, not repeatedly, and repeated applications for the same relief constitute an abuse of court process under Section 17(2) of the Judicature Act.

Legislation cited (6)

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 Miscellaneous Application No. 015 of 2026) [2026] UGHC 637 (11 June 2026)
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.