Wakilii

Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Civil Appeal 2 of 1997)

Supreme Court · [1997] UGSC 8 · 1997 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court ruling on a taxation appeal, met by a preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal
Decision
Appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent

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 Supreme Court struck out the appeal as incompetent. An appellant who fails to serve the respondent with a copy of the application for proceedings cannot, under Rule 81(2), rely on the proviso to Rule 81(1) to exclude that time, so the appeal was filed out of the sixty-day period. Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, being expressly 'subject to the law', is no licence to ignore the existing Rules of Court and is not a magic wand for defaulting litigants. The appellant had also failed to deposit the mandatory security for costs required by Rule 81(1)(d), no relief having been sought under Rule 112. The appeal was struck out with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent

Facts

The appellant firm of advocates had filed taxation bills against the respondent bank for professional fees. Before taxation, representatives of both parties signed a letter proposing an out-of-court settlement of the fees. At the taxation hearing the Deputy Registrar admitted the letter over objection and held it to be a consent judgment. The respondent appealed under section 61 of the Advocates' Act, and the Principal Judge set aside the Deputy Registrar's ruling on 19 July 1995 and refused leave to appeal. The appellant lodged a notice of appeal and, in March 1997, filed the present appeal. The respondent challenged its competence on two grounds: that the appeal was time-barred because the request for the typed proceedings had never been served on the respondent, and that no security for costs had been deposited when the appeal was filed. The appellant conceded both the non-service of the request and the non-payment of security, relying instead on Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and on Rule 85.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was instituted within the sixty-day period prescribed by Rule 81(1), or whether the appellant could rely on the proviso excluding time taken to prepare proceedings.
  2. Whether an appellant who failed to serve the respondent with the application for a copy of the proceedings may rely on the proviso to Rule 81(1).
  3. Whether Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution excuses an appellant's failure to comply with the Rules of Court.
  4. Whether failure to provide security for costs at the time of lodging the appeal, as required by Rule 81(1)(d), rendered the appeal incompetent.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out for being incompetent.
  • Appellant to pay the costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time for Institution — Proviso to Rule 81(1) — Service of Request for Proceedings
An appellant is not entitled to rely on the proviso to Rule 81(1), which excludes the time taken to prepare a copy of the proceedings, unless the application for those proceedings was served on the respondent as required by Rule 81(2).
Constitutional Law — Article 126(2)(e) — Substantive Justice and Procedural Rules
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution is expressly subject to the law and is no licence to ignore the existing Rules of Court; a litigant invoking it must satisfy the court that, in the circumstances, it was not desirable to pay undue regard to the relevant technicality.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Security for Costs — Rule 81(1)(d)
Security for the costs of an appeal must be provided by the appellant at the time of lodging the memorandum of appeal under Rule 81(1)(d), unless an application for relief has been made and granted under Rule 112; this requirement is mandatory and Rule 85 is inapplicable.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Competence — Striking Out
An appeal lodged out of time and unaccompanied by the mandatory security for costs, with no application for extension of time or relief, is incompetent and will be struck out.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Robert Kitariko v D. Twino-Katama (Civil Application No. 6 of 1982)
  • P. Nakiwala v The Libyan Arab Uganda Bank (Civil Application No. 6 of 1986)
  • Almeda v Almeda (Civil Application No. 15 of 1990)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Civil Appeal 2 of 1997) [1997] UGSC 8 (23 August 1997)
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.