Wakilii

Masereka v Kule and Another (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 74 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's ruling dismissing application for retrial of lost proceedings
Decision
Appeal dismissed for defective memorandum of appeal

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 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the memorandum of appeal was defective. The grounds of appeal were narrative in nature, not concise or under distinct heads as required by Order 43 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and failed to focus on the ruling appealed against. The memorandum merely narrated what the appellant thought the magistrate should have done rather than stating proper grounds of objection to the Chief Magistrate's decision.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for defective memorandum of appeal

Facts

The appellant filed a suit in Kasinga Court in 1987. Judgment was given in favour of the first respondent, who later died and was survived by the second respondent. The appellant appealed but the proceedings were lost. In January 2018, the appellant was informed by the Magistrate that the file could not be traced. The appellant then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2019 seeking a retrial. The second respondent opposed the application, arguing it was barred by limitation as the original suit was filed 32 years earlier. The Chief Magistrate dismissed the application on grounds of limitation. The appellant appealed to the High Court in December 2019.

Issues

  1. Whether the memorandum of appeal complied with the requirements of Order 43 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the grounds of appeal were properly framed and focused on the decision appealed against.

Orders

  • The memorandum of appeal is rejected.
  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Form and Content Requirements
A memorandum of appeal must set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from without any argument or narrative, and the grounds must be numbered consecutively as required by Order 43 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Defective Grounds
Grounds of appeal must be precise and concise, state the ground of objection to the decision appealed against without descending into arguments or narrating what transpired in the lower court, be premised on law and not merely on facts, and flow directly from the decision appealed against.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Dismissal for Defective Memorandum
Where a memorandum of appeal is narrative in nature, not focused on the decision appealed against, and does not bring out proper reasons for objection to the lower court's decision, the memorandum may be rejected and the appeal dismissed.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Panday v R (1967) EA 336
  • Narsensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Kibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • M/S Tatu Naiga & Co Emporium v Verjee Brothers Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2000)
  • Kitgum District Local Government and Another v Ayella Odoch Jimmy Joel (High Court Civil Appeal No. 008 of 2015)
  • Ruryabeita Frank v Beyunga Kenneth and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Masereka v Kule and Another (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2019) [2022] UGHC 74 (11 January 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.