Wakilii

Ebinu v Ejumu (Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 235 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out memorandum of appeal for being filed out of time
Decision
Application to strike out memorandum of appeal dismissed; appeal to proceed

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 held that a memorandum of appeal was not filed out of time where the intending appellant had applied for certified copies of the record within thirty days but the court failed to provide them for over a year. The time taken by the court to produce certified copies is excluded from the thirty-day limitation period under section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. The application to strike out the memorandum of appeal was disallowed.

Outcome

Application to strike out memorandum of appeal dismissed; appeal to proceed

Facts

The applicant obtained judgment in his favour in Land Claim No. 8 of 2010 on 23 December 2021. The respondent applied for certified copies of the record on 7 January 2022, within the thirty-day appeal period. Despite repeated follow-up, the trial court did not provide certified copies until March 2023, citing absence of a typist. The respondent filed a preliminary memorandum of appeal on 5 September 2022. The applicant then brought this application to strike out the memorandum of appeal, arguing it was filed approximately ten months out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the memorandum of appeal filed by the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2022 should be struck out and/or dismissed for being filed out of time.
  2. Whether an affidavit in reply deposed by a legal assistant rather than the respondent personally is valid.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application disallowed.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Limitation Period — Exclusion of Time Taken by Court to Provide Certified Copies
In computing the thirty-day limitation period for filing an appeal under section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, the time taken by the court or registrar in making certified copies of the decree, order, and proceedings is excluded under section 79(2), provided the intending appellant applied for certified copies within the initial thirty-day period.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Effect of Administrative Delay by Court
An intending appellant cannot be prejudiced by delays in the court system in generating the record of proceedings. Where the court fails to provide certified copies despite timely application, the entire period of delay is excluded from the limitation period for filing an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Commencement of Appeal — Memorandum of Appeal versus Notice of Appeal
An appeal to the High Court from a magistrate's court is commenced by a memorandum of appeal lodged in the High Court, not by a notice of appeal.
Evidence — Affidavits — Affidavits by Persons Other Than Parties — Legal Assistants
An affidavit may be sworn by any person conversant with the relevant facts, including a legal assistant working with the party's advocates. Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules does not require that the deponent be a party to the application, only that the affidavit be confined to facts the deponent can prove from his or her own knowledge.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Mbarara Municipal Council v Jetha Brothers Ltd (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2021)
  • Kelia Obaya and Another v Ovuru Stephano (HCCA No. 2 of 2015)
  • Maria Onyango Ochola v J. Hannington Wasswa [1996] HCB 43

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ebinu v Ejumu (Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 235 (12 July 2023)
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.