Wakilii

Emily Tabu and Others v Kamal Agony Okudriga (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2020)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 171 · 2026 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court struck out on preliminary point of law for improper commencement
Decision
Appeal struck out as incompetent for improper commencement

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 an appeal to the High Court must be commenced by filing a memorandum of appeal within 30 days of the decree or order under section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. A notice of appeal does not commence an appeal; it merely expresses an intention to appeal. The Civil Procedure Rules do not provide for filing a 'draft' or 'provisional' memorandum of appeal. The court struck out the purported appeal as incompetent for failure to properly commence it.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as incompetent for improper commencement

Facts

The appellants filed a notice of appeal on 5 June 2020 against a decision of the Chief Magistrate's Court rendered on 20 May 2020. They subsequently filed what they termed a 'provisional memorandum of appeal' in the High Court. When the matter came up for hearing on 3 March 2026, the court observed that the appeal had been commenced with a provisional memorandum. Counsel for the appellants explained that he was awaiting the certified judgment and record of proceedings from the lower court before filing a final memorandum of appeal. The court raised the issue as a preliminary point of law.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was properly commenced before the High Court.
  2. Whether a 'provisional memorandum of appeal' is a valid mode of commencing an appeal under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • The purported appeal is struck out.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Commencement of Appeal — Memorandum of Appeal
An appeal to the High Court is commenced by filing a memorandum of appeal signed by the appellant or their advocate within 30 days of the decree or order appealed against, as required by section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal — Effect
A notice of appeal does not commence an appeal in the High Court from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court; it merely expresses an intention to appeal and puts the lower court on notice to prepare and certify the record of proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Provisional or Draft Memorandum — Validity
The Civil Procedure Rules do not provide for filing a 'draft' or 'provisional' memorandum of appeal. An appeal filed by such means is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limitation — Effect of Delay in Obtaining Record
Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act does not imply that an appeal is properly filed only after the appellant receives the record from the lower court. If the appeal is filed within 30 days and the record is provided later, the appeal remains valid, and the appellant may amend the memorandum of appeal with the court's permission once the record is accessible.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Scope
A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. It is in the nature of a demurrer and aims to save the time of the court and parties by disposing of a matter without going into the merits.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 697
  • Gunya Company Ltd v Attorney General (HCCS No. 31 of 2011)
  • Geoffrey Nangumya T/a Nangumya & Co. Advocates v Security Plus (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 858 of 2021)
  • Maria Onyango Ochola and Others v J. Hannington Wasswa [1996] HCB 43
  • Loi Kageni Kiryapawo v Gole Nicholas Davis (SC Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 15 of 2007)
  • Hajj Mohammed Nyanzi v Ali Sseggane [1992-1993] HCB 218

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Emily Tabu and Others v Kamal Agony Okudriga (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2020) [2026] UGHC 171 (5 March 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.