Wakilii

Dr. S.B. Kinyatta and Another v Subramanian Rajha Gopalan and Another (Civil Application No. 100 2000)

Court of Appeal · [2001] UGCA 64 · 2001 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out a notice of appeal for failure to institute the appeal within time
Decision
Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed

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 applicants sought to strike out the respondents' notice of appeal on the ground that, almost a year after judgment, no appeal had been instituted and the respondents had fled the jurisdiction. The Court held that under rule 82 an intending appellant who lodges a notice of appeal, applies in writing within thirty days for a copy of the proceedings, and serves the respondent with a copy of that request is not obliged to follow up preparation of the record; time to institute the appeal runs only after the registrar certifies the record. Since the respondents had complied, the delay could not be blamed on them and the notice could not be struck out. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed

Facts

Judgment in High Court Civil Suit No. 444 of 1998 was delivered on 19 January 2000. The respondents lodged a notice of appeal on 2 February 2000 and applied within the prescribed time for a copy of the proceedings from the High Court, serving the applicants with a copy of the letter of request. Nearly a year later no appeal had been instituted. The applicants averred that the respondents were British nationals who had fled the country soon after judgment and remained outside the court's jurisdiction, using the existence of the notice of appeal to deny the applicants the fruits of the decree. The applicants sought an order striking out the notice of appeal. The respondents did not file an affidavit in opposition, so the facts were uncontested; counsel for the applicants conceded that the respondents had applied for the proceedings within time and served the request letter.

Issues

  1. Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out where the intending appellant applied for a copy of the record of proceedings within time but had not instituted the appeal.
  2. Whether rule 82 imposes on an intending appellant a duty to follow up the preparation of the record of proceedings.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the result of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Institution of Appeal — Duty to Apply for Record under Rule 82
An intending appellant who lodges a notice of appeal, applies in writing within thirty days for a copy of the record of proceedings, and serves a copy of that request on the respondent is not obliged to follow up the preparation of the record; time to institute the appeal runs only from the registrar's certification of the time required to prepare the record.
Appeals — Striking Out Notice of Appeal — Compliance with Rule 82
Where an intending appellant has complied with the requirements of rule 82, they cannot be blamed for delay in prosecuting the appeal and the court cannot strike out the notice of appeal, notwithstanding hardship to the successful litigant.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(2)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.43(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.81
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.82
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.82(2)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.82(3)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.112

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr. S.B. Kinyatta and Another v Subramanian Rajha Gopalan and Another (Civil Application No. 100 2000) [2001] UGCA 64 (20 April 2001)
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.