Wakilii

Munshiram and Co. v Star Soda Water Factory (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1934.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1934] EACA 14 · 1934 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from ruling of Resident Magistrate striking out amended plaint
Decision
Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with procedural requirements

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 Court held that Order 39 r.1 is mandatory in requiring every memorandum of appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the decree or order appealed from. Where an appellant fails to comply with this provision by filing only a copy of the judgment or ruling without the formal order, the appeal is not properly before the Court and must be dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with procedural requirements

Facts

Appellants filed a plaint against respondents in December 1933. Service was accepted and defences filed by Deva Singh and Aga Raza trading as Star Soda Water Factory. Appellants later applied to serve Lal Singh, alleged to be a partner at the time liability was incurred. Lal Singh entered appearance and filed defence in July 1934. Appellants subsequently filed an amended plaint without leave and served copies on all three defendants. Lal Singh applied to strike out the amended plaint or be dismissed from the suit. The Resident Magistrate struck out the amended plaint with costs to Lal Singh. Appellants appealed, filing a certified copy of the judgment but no certified copy of the formal order, which had never been drawn up.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal is properly before the Court where the memorandum of appeal is not accompanied by a certified copy of the Order appealed from, as required by Order 39 r.1.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to Lal Singh.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Requirements for Memorandum of Appeal
Order 39 r.1 is mandatory in requiring every memorandum of appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the decree or order appealed from.
Civil Procedure — Distinction Between Judgment and Order
The Civil Procedure Code clearly distinguishes between a judgment and an order. A judgment or ruling setting out grounds for a decision is distinct from the formal order that must be drawn up, particularly where costs are awarded and execution may be necessary.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Consequence of Non-Compliance
Where an appellant fails to file a certified copy of the order appealed from as required by Order 39 r.1, the appeal is not properly before the Court and must be dismissed.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Code Order 39 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance s.25

Cases cited (2)

  • Qasim Ali Khan v Bhagwanta Kunwar (40 All. 12)
  • Jeevanjee v Jeevanjee (12 K.L.R. 41)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Munshiram and Co. v Star Soda Water Factory (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1934.) [1934] EACA 14 (1 January 1934)
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.