Hon. Francis Mukama v Uganda Wild Life Authority (Civil Application 75 of 2004)

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.

Holding

The court dismissed an application to strike out a notice of appeal for late service. Under rule 78(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, an intended appellant must serve the notice of appeal on all persons directly affected before or within seven days of lodging it. On the evidence, the court found it more probable than not that the applicant's counsel were served with both the notice of appeal and the letter requesting proceedings on 5 May 2004, one day after lodging in court on 4 May 2004, well within the seven-day period. Counsel had omitted to stamp the notice and asked to collect it later, later stamping it on 1 June 2004. Having complied with rule 78(1), the notice could not be struck out.

Outcome

Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed with costs; notice of appeal upheld

Facts

The applicant was the successful plaintiff in High Court Civil Suit No. 290 of 2002 against the respondent, with judgment delivered on 30 April 2004. The respondent filed a notice of appeal on 4 May 2004 but the applicant contended it was not served within the requisite time. The applicant's counsel first became aware of the notice on 1 June 2004 when it appeared among documents annexed to a stay-of-execution application, and confirmed via a court registry search that it had been lodged on 4 May 2004 without any extension of time being sought. The respondent's evidence was that both the notice of appeal and letter requesting proceedings were served on the applicant's counsel on 5 May 2004, but counsel omitted to stamp the notice and asked the process server to collect it later, only stamping it on 1 June 2004.

Issues

1. Whether the notice of appeal was served on the applicant or his counsel within the time prescribed by rule 78(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
2. Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out for non-compliance with an essential step in the proceedings.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs of the application to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 rule 43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 rule 76
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 rule 82
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 rule 78(1)

Cases cited (1)

• Francis Mutabazi and 3 Others v Horizon Coaches Ltd (Civil Application No. 97 of 2000)

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