Wakilii

Justice Anup Singh Choudry v Sikh Association Uganda & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 2065 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for extension of time within which to serve the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal.
Decision
Application for extension of time to serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal dismissed with costs.

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 single Justice of the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for extension of time to serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal. The applicant, having elected to pursue a review of the High Court's dismissal order rather than lodge a Notice of Appeal, had by conduct abandoned his right of appeal. Without a validly lodged Notice of Appeal under Rule 76, there was no basis for extending time to serve appeal documents under Rule 83. The Court further held that the supporting affidavit, being undated and unsigned by the deponent contrary to the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act and the Oaths Act, was no affidavit at all in law, leaving the motion without supporting grounds.

Outcome

Application for extension of time to serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal dismissed with costs.

Facts

In 2014 the applicant sued the Sikh Association Uganda (a company limited by guarantee) and the members of its Management Committee for defamation arising from a newspaper advert. On 19.09.2018 the High Court upheld a preliminary objection and rejected the plaint against the individual committee members, holding that where there is a disclosed principal it is the principal, not the agents, who must be sued. Rather than appeal, the applicant applied for review of that order (Miscellaneous Application No. 597 of 2018). The review was dismissed on 09.08.2019 for having been served out of time. The applicant then requested the record of proceedings and later brought this application to the Court of Appeal seeking extension of time to serve his Memorandum and Record of Appeal. He had never lodged a Notice of Appeal, and his supporting affidavit was undated and unsigned by him.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant, having elected to pursue a review of the High Court order rather than an appeal, could later obtain an extension of time to serve a Memorandum and Record of Appeal.
  2. Whether an applicant who had not lodged a Notice of Appeal could seek an extension of time to serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal.
  3. Whether an affidavit that is undated and unsigned by the deponent is a valid affidavit in law.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents.
  • No costs are awarded to the 2nd respondent who passed on and whose name has been taken off the Court record.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Election of Remedies — Review versus Appeal — Abandonment of Right of Appeal by Conduct
A party who has the option of either appealing or seeking a review of a decision and who elects to pursue review thereby abandons, by conduct, the right of appeal, and cannot later be granted an extension of time to institute or serve an appeal against that same decision.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal — Prerequisite to Extension of Time under Court of Appeal Rules
An applicant who has not lodged a Notice of Appeal in accordance with Rule 76 of the Court of Appeal Rules has no basis to apply for an extension of time within which to serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal, since those documents can only be received within the time running from the lodging of a Notice of Appeal under Rule 83.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Appeal — Form and Requirements — Written Request for Record Not a Substitute
A written request to the High Court for a certified record of proceedings does not amount to the lodging of a Notice of Appeal; Rule 76 of the Court of Appeal Rules prescribes the specific lodgement, contents and form of a Notice of Appeal, which must be observed.
Evidence — Affidavits — Validity — Undated and Unsigned Affidavit Void
An affidavit that is neither dated nor signed by the deponent is no affidavit at all in law, contrary to the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act and the Oaths Act, and it remains the deponent's duty to ensure the affidavit is properly signed and dated; the fault cannot be shifted to the Commissioner for Oaths.
Civil Procedure — Compliance with Rules — Duty to Explain Non-Compliance
The rules of civil procedure must be observed and complied with, and where there is non-compliance it must be adequately explained to the court by the non-complying party seeking justice; ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (2)

  • Dr. Rubinga v Yakobo Kato and Another (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1992)
  • Revici vs Pentice Hall Incorporated and Others [1969] 1 ALLER 772

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Justice Anup Singh Choudry v Sikh Association Uganda & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2020) [2020] UGCA 2065 (13 July 2020)
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.