Mustaq Abdullah Bhegani v James J. Obol-Ochola (Civil Application 4 of 1987)
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 respondent lodged a notice of appeal but failed to take any step to file the record of appeal within the 60-day period prescribed by the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant applied under Rule 80 to strike out the notice of appeal. The court held that Rule 82 renders a notice of appeal invalid where the record is not filed within time, and Rule 80 empowers a served party to move the court to strike out the notice with costs once Rule 82(a) can be invoked. The application was therefore properly brought and, being unopposed on any other ground, succeeded. The notice of appeal was struck out with costs to the applicant.
Outcome
Application to strike out the notice of appeal allowed with costs to the applicant
Facts
The applicant and respondent disputed ownership of a house on Plot 15 Salmon Rise, Bugolobi, Kampala. The respondent took the dispute to the High Court of Uganda and lost the suit against the applicant on 28 November 1986. On 1 December 1986 the respondent lodged a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal. A copy was served on counsel for the applicant. The respondent thereafter took no step to file the record of appeal within the prescribed 60-day period or at all. On 31 July 1987 counsel for the applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal. At the hearing, counsel for the respondent conceded that no step had been taken to file the record of appeal.
Issues
- Whether an application to strike out a notice of appeal under Rule 80 is misconceived where the appeal is said to have been deemed withdrawn under Rule 82.
- Whether the respondent's notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to file the record of appeal within the prescribed time.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- Notice of appeal struck out.
- Costs of the application to the applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Court of Appeal Rules rule 80
- Court of Appeal Rules rule 82
- Court of Appeal Rules rule 81
Cases cited (1)
- Kitariko v Kataama (Civil Application No. 6 of 1982)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.