Wakilii

Katsigazi v Musanyusa (Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 41 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out memorandum of appeal for failure to effect service within prescribed time
Decision
Appeal struck out for non-service and abatement

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 an appeal where the memorandum of appeal was not served within the 21 days prescribed by Order 5 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that obtaining a schedule for filing submissions without prior valid service did not amount to leave to serve out of time. The appeal had also abated under rule 4 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 for failure to take action within six months.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for non-service and abatement

Facts

The Applicant filed Civil Suit No. 119 of 2015 against the Respondent. On 25 September 2019, judgment was delivered in favour of the Respondent, with each party ordered to meet its own costs. On 23 October 2019, the Respondent filed a Memorandum of Appeal challenging the costs order. The Memorandum of Appeal was never served on the Applicant's counsel. On 24 February 2021, the Applicant's counsel received scheduling notes and submissions relating to the appeal but not the Memorandum itself. Counsel declined to file submissions without proper service of the Memorandum of Appeal. The Respondent claimed the Applicant's whereabouts were unknown after judgment and that COVID-19 restrictions compounded service difficulties. The Respondent only learned of the Applicant's lawyer in December 2020 through another unrelated suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the Memorandum of Appeal was served on the Applicant within the time prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 39/2019 struck off the record.
  • A copy of this Ruling shall be placed on the file.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Appeals — Time Limits for Service of Memorandum of Appeal
Where the Civil Procedure Rules do not prescribe a specific time for service of a memorandum of appeal, Order 49 rule 2 applies, incorporating the 21-day period prescribed by Order 5 rule 2 for service of summons to all orders, notices and documents including memoranda of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Substituted Service — Duty to Apply When Personal Service Not Possible
Where a party to be served cannot be traced after reasonable efforts, Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides for substituted service, and a party cannot simply rely on inability to locate the other party as an excuse for non-service.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Abatement — Six-Month Inaction Rule
Under rule 4 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019, an appeal abates where no action is taken to prosecute it within six months of filing.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Service — Effect of Obtaining Hearing Schedule Without Prior Valid Service
Obtaining a schedule for filing submissions in an appeal does not amount to leave to serve the memorandum of appeal out of time and carries no legal validity where service was not effected within the prescribed time.

Legislation cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katsigazi_v_Musanyusa_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._22_of_2021)_[2022]_UGHCLD_41_(3_March_2022)
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.