Ekuket v Okonye & Anor (Civil Application No.170 of 2009)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On an application to strike out a notice of appeal under rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the Court held that the respondents had failed to take essential steps within the prescribed time, having never served the notice of appeal, memorandum of appeal or record of appeal on the applicant for over seven years, nor deposited security for costs. The Court rejected the contention that the 1st respondent was dead at the time of instituting the appeal, finding insufficient proof. The application was granted and the notice of appeal struck out with costs.

Outcome

Notice of appeal struck out with costs

Facts

On 9 November 2006, the High Court at Mbale delivered judgment in favour of the applicant, David Etuket. Dissatisfied, the respondents lodged an appeal in the Court of Appeal on 16 February 2007. On 21 August 2007, the applicant's former advocates were served with conferencing notes, prompting them to complain to the Registrar about the respondents' failure to serve the notice of appeal. The applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal, contending that the respondents had failed to serve the notice of appeal, memorandum of appeal and record of appeal within the prescribed time, had failed to deposit mandatory security for costs, and that the 1st respondent had died and was incapable of instituting the appeal. The respondents filed no reply; their former advocates had lost contact with them and were not represented at the hearing. Over seven years had elapsed without any step being taken to prosecute the appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the respondents failed to take an essential step in the proceedings within the prescribed time so as to warrant striking out the notice of appeal.
2. Whether the 1st respondent was dead at the time of instituting the appeal and thereby incapable of doing so.

Orders

• The application is granted.
• The Notice of Appeal filed by the respondents is struck out with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 42
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 78(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 82
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 88(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 105(1)

Cases cited (1)

• Andrew Maviri v Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd (Civil Application No. 274 of 2014)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Simon Peter Ongodia v Apuda Ignatius Loyola (Civil Application No. 490 of 2024)
• Achiro & Anor v Kidega (Election Petition Appeal No. 19 of 2016)
• Ayena Odongo v Okello Engola and 4 Ors (Parliamentary Election Petition No. 8 of 2016)
• Nebya Rutaro & Ors v Law Development Center (Civil Application 135 of 2009)

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