Wakilii

Isharaza v Beyunga (HCT-05-CV-CA-005-2004)

High Court · [2004] UGHC 76 · 2004 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court decision on a land dispute
Decision
Appeal struck out as defective

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 struck out the appeal with costs on the ground that the memorandum of appeal was incurably defective. The grounds were drafted in general terms contrary to Order 39 rule 1(2) CPR which requires grounds to be set out concisely and under distinct heads. The appellant attempted to argue additional grounds at the hearing without seeking leave under Order 39 rule 2 CPR.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as defective

Facts

The appellant appealed from a Chief Magistrate's decision concerning a land dispute. The appellant had originally been the plaintiff in the lower court. The memorandum of appeal contained two grounds stated in general terms: first, that the trial magistrate arrived at a wrong conclusion despite overwhelming evidence; second, that the trial magistrate misdirected himself on law and evidence resulting in a judgment against the weight of evidence. At the hearing, counsel for the appellant sought to argue additional points not apparent in the memorandum without seeking leave. The respondent objected that the memorandum was defective for non-compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the memorandum of appeal complied with the requirements of Order 39 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the appellant could argue grounds of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal without leave of court.

Orders

  • Memorandum of appeal struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Requirements for Grounds
A memorandum of appeal must set forth the grounds of objection concisely and under distinct heads as required by Order 39 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Grounds drawn in general terms that require further explanation to identify the particular objections do not satisfy this requirement.
Appeals — Arguing Grounds Not Pleaded — Requirement for Leave
Under Order 39 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an appellant cannot argue or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal except by leave of court. Where counsel attempts to argue points not apparent in the memorandum without seeking leave, this constitutes non-compliance with the rule.
Appeals — Defective Memorandum — Consequence
Where a memorandum of appeal does not comply with the requirements of Order 39 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is incurably defective and must be rejected entirely with costs.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Moro Okolla v John Lalobo [1979] HCB 54

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Isharaza v Beyunga (HCT-05-CV-CA-005-2004) [2004] UGHC 76 (7 October 2004)
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.