Wakilii

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

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 178 · 2015 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out a notice of appeal for failure to take an essential step within the prescribed time
Decision
Notice of appeal struck out for failure to lodge the appeal within the prescribed time

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 9 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 9 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 9 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Court of Appeal held that the time for lodging the appeal began to run on 30 June 2014 when the correct record of proceedings was supplied to the respondent, the record delivered on 29 March 2014 having related to a different case. The respondent could not rely on the exclusion of time under rule 83(2) because it had failed to retain and prove service of its letter requesting a corrected record, as required by rule 83(3). Rule 83 being mandatory, the respondent should have applied for enlargement of time rather than warehousing the record. The appeal was not lodged within 60 days. The application was granted and the notice of appeal struck out with costs.

Outcome

Notice of appeal struck out for failure to lodge the appeal within the prescribed time

Facts

The respondent filed a notice of appeal in the High Court on 28 February 2014 and served a written request for the record of proceedings dated 25 February 2014 on the applicant's counsel. A record was availed to the respondent on 29 March 2014, but it related to a different case (Civil Suit No. 266 of 2009, Etas Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd). The correct record of proceedings was supplied on 30 June 2014. The respondent claimed the record had typing errors, returned it for correction by letter dated 25/28 August 2014, received an edited version on 29 August 2014, and filed the appeal on 6 October 2014. The applicant, having discovered no appeal had been filed, lodged this application on 22 July 2014 to strike out the notice of appeal on the ground that the respondent had failed to take an essential step within the prescribed time.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent took an essential step in the proceedings within the prescribed time.
  2. Whether the respondent lodged the appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of the record of proceedings from the High Court.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Notice of Appeal filed by the respondent struck out.
  • Costs of the application awarded against the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Time for Lodging — Computation under Rule 83(1) Court of Appeal Rules
An appeal must be lodged within 60 days of the relevant decision, and time runs from the date the correct record of proceedings is supplied to the appellant; a record delivered in respect of a different case does not start time running.
Appeals — Exclusion of Time under Rule 83(2) — Proof of Service Requirement
An appellant cannot rely on the exclusion of time for preparation of proceedings under rule 83(2) unless the application for the copy was in writing, a copy was served on the respondent, and proof of that service was retained, as required by rule 83(3).
Appeals — Essential Step in Proceedings — Mandatory Nature of Rule 83
Rule 83 of the Court of Appeal Rules is mandatory and is not to be interpreted liberally; where an appellant who has received the record encounters difficulty, the correct procedure is to apply for enlargement of time rather than to delay filing.
Appeals — Striking Out Notice of Appeal under Rule 82 — Failure to Take Essential Step
A notice of appeal may be struck out under rule 82 where the appellant has failed to take an essential step in the proceedings within the prescribed time, including failing to lodge the appeal within 60 days of receipt of the record.

Legislation cited (4)

  • 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.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 Margaret 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 (9)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Maviri Vs Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd (Civil Application No.274 of 2014) [2015] UGCA 178 (7 July 2015)
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.