Wakilii

Jivanji and Another v Jivanji and Another (C.A. 29-1930)

East African Court of Appeal · [1930] EACA 41 · 1930 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from orders refusing review of judgment entered in accordance with arbitration award
Decision
Appeal dismissed for failure to draw up and lodge formal decree

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 it is the duty of a party wishing to appeal against or apply for review of a decree or order to move the court to draw up and issue the formal decree or order. An appeal cannot be entertained where no decree has been drawn up and lodged with the memorandum of appeal. A party cannot be aggrieved within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Ordinance by a judgment alone before a resultant decree has come into existence. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for failure to draw up and lodge formal decree

Facts

The original action was instituted on 25 May 1927 and referred to arbitration. The arbitrator filed his award in June 1930. On 8 July 1930, an ex parte verbal application was granted extending time to lodge objections to one month after documents were translated. On 10 August 1930, the respondents applied for judgment to be entered in accordance with the award. The judge held that the application to set aside the award was out of time and entered judgment on 25 August 1930. The appellants then applied for review under Order 42 Rule 1, which was refused on 13 September 1930 on the ground that no appeal lay from the judgment and therefore review was not available. The appellants appealed both orders but failed to draw up and lodge the formal decree from the 25 August judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether a decree must be drawn up before an appeal can be entertained by the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether an order extending time to file objections to an arbitration award beyond the statutory limitation period is valid.
  3. Whether a review of a judgment entered in accordance with an arbitration award is competent under Order 42 Rule 1.
  4. Whether a party can be said to be aggrieved by a judgment before a formal decree has been issued.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellants to bear the respondents' costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Necessity of Formal Decree
It is the duty of a party who wishes to appeal against or apply for a review of a decree or order to move the court to draw up and issue the formal decree or order before instituting the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Review — Aggrievement by Judgment versus Decree
A person applying for review under Order 42 must be aggrieved by a decree or order. However aggrieved a person may be at expressions in a judgment, unless that person is aggrieved at the formal decree or order based upon the judgment as a whole, that person cannot apply for review.
Arbitration & ADR — Awards — Extension of Time to Object
The period within which an application may be made to set aside an arbitration award under Article 158 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877 cannot be extended. An order purporting to extend such time is ultra vires.
Arbitration & ADR — Awards — Review of Decree Following Award
Where a decree is issued upon an arbitration award under Order 43 Rule 16, and no appeal lies from such decree except insofar as it is in excess of or not in accordance with the award, an application for review of such decree is incompetent as it would undermine the finality of arbitration awards.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (1)

  • Ghulam Khan v Muhammad Hasan (1902) 29 Cal 167

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jivanji and Another v Jivanji and Another (C.A. 29-1930) [1930] EACA 41 (1 January 1930)
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.