Mutanda v City Council of Kampala (CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 50 OF 1998)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that time within which to lodge an appeal does not begin to run until a true copy of the original proceedings is supplied to the intended appellant. Where the record received was so riddled with mistakes that it could not serve as a true copy, it was returned to the Registrar for correction, and time ran only from the date the corrected record was notified as ready for collection (2 December 1998), not from initial receipt (24 June 1998). The time taken by the Registrar to correct the record is excluded under rule 82(2). Since the appellant remained within time, the application to strike out the notice of appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application to strike out notice of appeal dismissed; intended appellant remains within time to file appeal

Facts

The applicant sought to strike out a notice of appeal filed by the respondent (City Council of Kampala) arising from a High Court ruling, on the ground that the respondent had failed to lodge the appeal within the sixty-day period prescribed by rule 82(1). The intended appellant's counsel had received the record of proceedings on 24 June 1998. Counsel for the respondent contended, however, that on perusal the record was so riddled with mistakes that it could not serve as a basis for preparing the record of appeal, and he requested the Registrar to correct it. By a letter dated 2 December 1998 the Deputy Registrar of the High Court notified counsel that a corrected record was ready for collection. The dispute centred on whether time began to run on 24 June 1998 (initial receipt) or on 2 December 1998 (notification of the corrected record).

Issues

1. Whether a record of proceedings, irrespective of its quality, once received by counsel for an intended appellant sets time running against the appellant under rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 rule 81
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 rule 82(1)
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 rule 82(2)
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 rule 83(a)
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 rule 53(5)

Cases cited (1)

• Hannington Wasswa Semakutu & Co v Maria Onyango Ochora and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 1998)

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