Musubaho Eric v Muhasa Luzi (Civil Appeal 17 of 2024)
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
An appeal filed without extracting the decree or order from which it arises is incompetent. Section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act requires that time for filing an appeal runs from the date of the decree or order, not from the date of judgment or ruling. Where no decree has been extracted, the appellate court cannot determine whether the appeal is within time, rendering the appeal incompetent and liable to dismissal.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as incompetent for failure to extract decree
Facts
The Appellant appealed a Chief Magistrate's judgment delivered on 13 May 2010 in a land dispute. The underlying suit concerned two portions of customary land in Murambi village, Kasese District. The Respondent claimed the Appellant had purchased only the first portion from her late brother but failed to pay the full purchase price, and had trespassed on the second portion which belonged to her. The trial court found for the Respondent. The Appellant obtained leave to appeal on 28 March 2022 (delivered 7 April 2022) and filed the appeal on 2 May 2022. However, the Appellant failed to extract a decree or order following the grant of leave to appeal.
Issues
- Whether the appeal was competent having been filed without extracting a decree or order as required by Section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed on grounds of incompetence contrary to Section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act.
- Costs granted to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Civil Procedure Act s.79(1)(a)
- Civil Procedure Act s.79(1)(b)
- Civil Procedure Act s.25
- Civil Procedure Act s.2(i)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.15 r.2
Cases cited (3)
- Father Narsensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tiberaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
- Nabasa Jolly v Enid Bainomugisha and Another (Civil Appeal No. 176 of 2017)
- Harnam Singh Bhogal T/A Harnam Singh & Co. v Jadva Karsan (1953) 20 EACA 17
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.