Wakilii

Hodgson and Simpson Ltd v Sheriff Devji and Sons (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1926)

East African Court of Appeal · [1926] EACA 1 · 1926 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revocation of conditional leave to appeal to Privy Council following failure to furnish security
Decision
Application granted; costs awarded to respondents; practice direction issued for future cases

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

When time allowed for furnishing security elapses without compliance, proceedings for appeal ipso facto fail and no formal revocation order is necessary. Courts hearing applications for conditional leave to appeal should make orders as to costs at the time of granting conditional leave, providing that costs abide further order if conditions are fulfilled, or be paid by the applicant if conditions are not met. Respondents appearing on such applications must request costs orders at that time or risk disallowance of costs on subsequent applications.

Outcome

Application granted; costs awarded to respondents; practice direction issued for future cases

Facts

In December 1926, the Court dismissed an appeal by Sheriff Devji & Sons against a decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya. On 10 June 1927, the Court granted the appellants conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council, subject to lodging security of £750 within one month. Hodgson & Simpson, Ltd, the respondents, appeared by counsel at the application hearing but no costs order was made. The appellants failed to furnish the required security within the time allowed. The respondents then applied for revocation of the conditional leave order, seeking certainty as to whether further appeal steps could be taken and seeking to recover their costs of appearing at the leave application.

Issues

  1. Whether a formal order of revocation is necessary when an appellant fails to furnish security within the time allowed for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council.
  2. Whether and how costs of an application for leave to appeal should be dealt with when the appellant fails to fulfil the conditions of conditional leave.

Orders

  • Application treated as an application for costs.
  • Appellants to pay respondents their costs of the application for leave to appeal and of this application.
  • Rule of practice established: respondents appearing on applications for leave to appeal must ask the Court to make an order as to their costs, failing which costs of any further application for costs shall be disallowed.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Privy Council — Conditional Leave — Effect of Failure to Furnish Security
When time allowed for furnishing security required for conditional leave to appeal elapses without the appellant complying, the proceedings with a view to appeal ipso facto fail and the appellant cannot obtain final leave to appeal, rendering any formal order of revocation unnecessary.
Appeals — Privy Council — Costs of Application for Leave
The Court hearing an application for conditional leave to appeal is the proper Court to deal with costs of that application, and should make an order at the time of granting conditional leave providing that costs abide further order if conditions are fulfilled, or be paid by the applicant if conditions are not met.
Appeals — Privy Council — Practice Direction on Costs
When respondents appear upon an application for leave to appeal, they must ask the Court to make an order as to their costs at that time, and should they fail to do so their costs of any further application for costs will be disallowed.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Eastern Africa (Appeal to the Privy Council) Order-in-Council Art.5
  • Eastern Africa (Appeal to the Privy Council) Order-in-Council Art.6
  • Eastern Africa (Appeal to the Privy Council) Order-in-Council Art.17
  • Eastern Africa (Appeal to the Privy Council) Order-in-Council Art.18

Cases cited (1)

  • Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1925

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hodgson and Simpson Ltd v Sheriff Devji and Sons (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1926) [1926] EACA 1 (1 January 1926)
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.