Maviri v Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd (Civil Applic. No. 274 of 2014)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that the record of proceedings delivered to the respondent on 29/3/2014 was invalid as it related to a different suit, and that the correct record was supplied on 30/6/2014, from which date the 60-day limitation began running. The respondent could not rely on a subsequent letter requesting an edited version to freeze time, having failed to prove service and retain proof as required by rule 83(3). Rule 83 being mandatory could not be interpreted liberally; the proper course was to apply for enlargement of time. The respondent having failed to take the essential step within time, the Court granted the application and struck out the notice of appeal with costs.

Outcome

Notice of appeal struck out with costs

Facts

The respondent, dissatisfied with a High Court decision, filed a notice of appeal on 28/2/2014 and a request for the record of proceedings dated 25/2/2014, which was served on the applicant's counsel. The Commercial Court availed a record on 29/3/2014, but this related to a different suit (Civil Suit No. 266 of 2009, Etas Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd). The correct record of proceedings in HCCS No. 334 of 2011 was supplied to the respondent's counsel on 30/6/2014. The respondent claimed that, upon perusal, typing errors were discovered, prompting a letter to the Registrar requesting correction, with an edited version delivered on 29/8/2014. The appeal was lodged on 6/10/2014, which the respondent said was 37 days after receipt of the corrected record. The applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal, contending the appeal was lodged out of time and that no proof of service of the request for the edited record had been retained as required.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent failed to take an essential step in the proceedings within the prescribed time.
2. Whether the appeal was lodged within 60 days from the date of receipt of the record of proceedings from the High Court.
3. Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out.

Orders

• Application granted.
• The Notice of Appeal filed by the respondent be and is hereby struck out.
• Costs awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.82
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.83
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.83(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.83(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.83(3)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.84

Cases cited (4)

• NHCC Ltd v Salome Kyomukama (Civil Application No. 133 of 2009)
• Reamton Ltd v Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd (Civil Application No. 53 of 1997)
• Bakaluba Mukasa Peter v Nalugo Mary Margret Sekiziyivu (Election Petition Application No. 24 of 2011)
• Okwanga Valentino v Gulu District Local Council Government (Civil Appeal No. 265 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Ongoma Moses Alias Okidi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 2019)

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