Hon Masika Apollo and Others v Wandibah Enosi [2026] UGHC 759
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 held that filing a memorandum of appeal with the registry is an act of institution and does not constitute service on the opposite party; service must be effected within 21 days under Order 43 Rule 2(3), with any extension sought within a further 15 days under Order 5 Rule 1(2). As the memorandum filed on 30 October 2023 reached the Applicants' advocates only in March 2024, and no sworn explanation for the default was offered, the appeal was declared incompetent. Rather than strike it out immediately, the Court granted the Respondent 14 days to apply for extension of time, failing which the appeal would stand struck out automatically. Unsworn assertions in submissions were disregarded.
Outcome
Appeal declared incompetent; Respondent given 14 days to apply for extension of time to serve, failing which the appeal stands struck out automatically
Facts
The dispute arose from a family and succession contest over the estate of the late Samson Wesonga, litigated in the Mbale Chief Magistrate's Court as Miscellaneous Causes No. 023 of 2022 and No. 071 of 2022. The Chief Magistrate ruled in Miscellaneous Cause No. 071 of 2022 on 4 July 2023. The Respondent, aggrieved, filed a Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal with the Deputy Registrar of the High Court at Mbale on 30 October 2023, commencing Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2023. Service of the memorandum on the Applicants was due by 20 November 2023, and any application for extension of time by 5 December 2023. The Applicants deposed that no service occurred within that period and that their advocates, M/S Luchivya & Co. Advocates, first received the memorandum in March 2024, exhibited as Annexture "C". The Applicants filed this application on 28 February 2024 to strike out the appeal. The Respondent, appearing in person, deposed only that he had deposited the documents with the Deputy Registrar and awaited a hearing date. In written submissions he also asserted, without affidavit or documentary support, that the third Applicant had died, and made allegations against the Applicants' counsel.
Issues
- Whether the Respondent served the Memorandum of Appeal on the Applicants within the time prescribed by Order 43 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- What remedies are available where a memorandum of appeal is not served within the prescribed time and no application for extension of time is made.
- Whether the Court could act on an unsworn assertion in written submissions that one of the Applicants had died, and on allegations of professional misconduct against counsel.
Orders
- Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2023 is declared incompetent as currently constituted by reason of the Respondent's failure to serve the Memorandum of Appeal within the prescribed time.
- The Respondent is granted fourteen (14) days from the date of the Ruling to file a formal application under Order 51 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act for extension of time to serve the Memorandum of Appeal.
- Should the Respondent fail to file that application within 14 days, Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2023 shall stand struck out automatically without further order of this Court.
- Costs of this Application are awarded to the Applicants.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282 s.98
- Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282 s.79(1)(b)
- Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 71-1 Order 5 Rule 1(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 71-1 Order 5 Rule 1(3)
- Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 71-1 Order 43 Rule 2(3)
- Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 71-1 Order 49 Rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 71-1 Order 51 Rule 6
- Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 71-1 Order 52 Rules 1 & 3
- Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 71-1 Order 24 Rules 4 and 10
- Advocates Act, Cap. 295
Cases cited (10)
- Semakula v Magala & Others [1979] HCB 90
- Nagawa Sarah and Another v Mubiru Swaibu and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0023 of 2024)
- Eriga Jos Perino v Vuzzi Azza Victor and Others (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0009 of 2017)
- Ojara Otto Julius v Okwera Benson (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0023 of 2017)
- Tiberio Okeny and Another v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)
- Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
- Ggoloba Godfrey v Harriet Kizito (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2006)
- Zam Nalumansi v Sulaiman Bale (Civil Application No. 2 of 1999)
- Kellia Obaya and Pacuryema Margaret v Ovuru Stephano (Civil Appeal No. 0002 of 2015)
- National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.