Wakilii

George Lubega & Ors v Uganda Transport Co. Ltd & Anor [1987] UGSC 2

Supreme Court · 1987 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal against the quantum of general damages awarded by the trial court; heard on a preliminary objection
Decision
Appeal struck out as incompetent for being filed out of time, 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 court upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the appeal as incompetent. The notice of appeal was filed 15 days outside the 14-day period in Rule 74(2), and the record of appeal 149 days outside the 60-day period in Rule 81(1)(b), with no Registrar's certificate and no service on the respondent. Having demanded and collected the decretal sum, the appellant's side could not approbate and reprobate; counsel was found to have had no instructions to appeal. Counsel was not condemned to pay costs personally, having had no opportunity to show cause. The court condemned the practice of briefing an advocate sharing chambers with opposing counsel and referred the conduct to the Law Council.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as incompetent for being filed out of time, with costs to the respondent

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent company for general damages for pain and injuries arising from a motor accident involving the respondent's vehicle. On 17 March 1986 the trial court awarded him shs. 360,000 general damages. The appellant's firm (Mugabi & Co.) wrote demanding the decretal sum together with costs, and two cheques totalling about shs. 475,000 were issued by the respondent company and paid on or about 15 April 1986. Despite having collected the decretal sum, on 16 April 1986 a notice of appeal against the quantum of damages was filed, 15 days outside the 14-day limit. The record of appeal was filed on 20 February 1987, 149 days outside the 60-day limit, without a Registrar's certificate, and was not served on the respondent. Separately, respondent's counsel had briefed Mr. Kiyingi, an advocate working in the chambers of the appellant's counsel, to appear at the trial.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was competent where the notice of appeal and the record of appeal were filed outside the time limits in Rules 74(2) and 81(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. Whether the appeal should be entertained where the appellant's counsel had already demanded and collected the decretal sum and costs from the respondent.
  3. Whether counsel for the appellant should be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal personally.
  4. Whether it is proper for an advocate to brief, or for an advocate to accept a brief from, an advocate practising in the chambers of opposing counsel in a contentious matter.

Orders

  • Notice of appeal struck out as incompetent.
  • Appeal struck out with costs to the respondent.
  • Counsel for the appellant not ordered to pay costs personally.
  • Copies of the ruling forwarded to the Law Council for consideration and appropriate action.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal — Time limit under Rule 74(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules
A notice of appeal filed outside the 14-day period prescribed by Rule 74(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules is filed out of time and renders the appeal incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Record of Appeal — Time limit under Rule 81(1)(b) and absence of Registrar's certificate
A record of appeal filed beyond the 60 days allowed by Rule 81(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, without a certificate from the Registrar, is filed out of time and the appeal is incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Approbation and reprobation — Acceptance of decretal sum
A party who has demanded and accepted payment of the decretal sum cannot thereafter appeal against the same judgment; counsel cannot approbate and reprobate in the same breath.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Personal liability of an advocate — Opportunity to show cause
An advocate will not be ordered to pay the costs of proceedings personally where he has not been afforded an opportunity to answer the complaint and show cause against the order.
Legal Profession — Professional conduct — Briefing of advocates and conflict of interest under r.4 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1977
Under r.4 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1977 an advocate who cannot appear personally may only brief another advocate acceptable to the client; briefing, in a contentious matter, an advocate sharing chambers with opposing counsel raises a conflict of interest and is improper.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Court of Appeal Rules r.74(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.81(1)(b)
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1977 r.4
  • Advocates Act 1970

Cases cited (2)

  • Kohli V. Popatlal (1964) 219
  • Abrahim v Jutsun [1963] 2 All ER 402

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

George Lubega & Ors v Uganda Transport Co. Ltd & Anor [1987] UGSC 2 (2 July 1987)
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.