Karyeija v Others (Civil Application No. 120 of 2002)
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 of Appeal held that no appeal can be instituted in the name of a dead person; it may only be instituted in the name of the deceased's legal representative, who must first apply to be substituted on record under Order 21 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules (or the equivalent rules of the court) before acquiring locus standi. The substitution application (Civil Application No. 75 of 2001) was not yet before the court, so there was nothing to which the present application could be tied. The application was incompetent and there was nothing to adjourn. The application was struck out with costs to the respondents.
Outcome
Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents
Facts
The applicant sought an extension of time within which to institute an appeal against a High Court decision in Civil Suit No. 597/95, and an order permitting the legal representative of the deceased former plaintiff to institute the appeal. The former plaintiff had died before lodging an appeal. When the matter came up for hearing, counsel for the applicant sought an adjournment to secure a related application (Civil Application No. 75 of 2001) believed to deal with substitution of the deceased's legal representative. Counsel for the respondents objected, arguing that no application to substitute the legal representative was yet on record before the court, and that without an order putting the legal representative on record under Order 21 Rule 3, the legal representative had no locus standi. The court found that the substitution application was not before it, so there was nothing to adjourn for.
Issues
- Whether the court should grant an adjournment to enable the applicant to secure a related application (Civil Application No. 75 of 2001) which would substitute the legal representative for the deceased plaintiff.
- Whether an application for extension of time to appeal can be entertained where the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff has not first been put on record by court order.
Orders
- Objection upheld.
- Application struck out as incompetent.
- Costs to the respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 84
- Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 96
- Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 1
- Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 41(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 21 Rule 3
Cases cited (2)
- Annah Kabunga v Leonia Karyeija and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 121 of 2002)
- Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd v Reamation Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.