Luyigo Henry and Musasizi Samuel v Pauline Namwanje (Civil Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2023)
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
Held that a Notice of Appeal filed without any subsequent steps to prosecute the appeal for six years constitutes an abuse of court process. The Respondent failed to comply with Rule 74(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions by not serving the Notice of Appeal within the mandatory seven-day period, and failed to institute the appeal by filing a memorandum of appeal and record of appeal within the prescribed sixty days under Rule 79(1). The Court exercised its inherent power under Rule 2(2) to prevent abuse of process and struck out the Notice of Appeal with costs to the Applicants.
Outcome
Notice of Appeal struck out for failure to comply with procedural requirements and failure to prosecute
Facts
The Applicants were successful in the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2012, with judgment delivered on 21 October 2019. The Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal on 25 October 2019 but served it on the Applicants only on 4 November 2019, nine days after filing and beyond the mandatory seven-day service period prescribed by Rule 74(1). Since filing the Notice in October 2019, the Respondent took no further steps to prosecute the appeal for six years. She did not file a memorandum of appeal, obtain the record of appeal, or take any steps toward instituting or prosecuting the appeal. The Respondent's counsel withdrew from representation in October 2025, stating they could no longer locate their client. Substituted service of the hearing notice was effected through the Daily Monitor newspaper on 15 June 2026 as ordered by the Court. The Respondent did not appear, was not represented, and filed no reply to the application.
Issues
- Whether the Notice of Appeal filed by the Respondent on 25 October 2019 should be struck out for failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements.
- Whether the Respondent's failure to serve the Notice of Appeal within seven days as required by Rule 74(1) warrants striking out the Notice.
- Whether the Respondent's failure to prosecute the appeal for six years constitutes an abuse of court process.
Orders
- Notice of Appeal in Civil Appeal Number 118 of 2012 struck out.
- Costs awarded to the Applicants.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I. 13-11 Rule 2(2)
- Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 74(1)
- Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 78
- Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 79(1)
- Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 80(a)
- Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 53(2)
- Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 109
Cases cited (4)
- Miriam Kuteesa v Edith Nantumbwe and 3 Others (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 20 of 2014)
- Francis Nansio Micah v Nuwa Walakira (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1994)
- Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)
- Buyungo v Nyansiano and 6 Others (Civil Application No. 10 of 2022)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.