Nima v Tamirawo (Civil Appeal 97 of 2014)

Observed later treatment

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 High Court dismissed the appeal on a preliminary objection, holding that the appeal was incompetent for failure to serve the memorandum of appeal on the respondent. The court held that although Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules is silent on service of the memorandum of appeal, the principles of fair hearing require that such service be effected in accordance with Order 5 rule 2, which mandates service within 21 days. The process of filing is only completed upon service to the opposite party.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as incompetent for failure to serve memorandum of appeal on the respondent

Facts

The respondent sued the late Nima Gamaliel Kubonaku claiming she purchased land from him in 2001 for UGX 4,500,000, paid the full price, took possession, and fenced the land, but the vendor refused to facilitate transfer. The trial magistrate found in favour of the respondent, awarding her the land, compensation, general damages of UGX 20,000,000, punitive damages of UGX 5,000,000, and costs. The appellant, as administrator of the deceased's estate, appealed on grounds including lack of jurisdiction and failure to evaluate evidence on payment. The appeal was filed on 16 June 2014, within 30 days of the 30 May 2014 judgment, but the respondent raised preliminary objections concerning late filing and non-service of the memorandum of appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the memorandum of appeal was filed out of time without leave of court.
2. Whether the memorandum of appeal was properly served on the Respondent within the prescribed time.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Act s.79(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 49 rule 2
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101

Cases cited (6)

• Father Nanensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tiberaga (SCCA No. 17 of 2006)
• Luzinda George v Edward Wasswa (HCCA No. 39 of 2009)
• Michael Mulo Mulageusi v Peter Katabaro (HCMA No. 6006 of 2016)
• Saturday Musolho v Baivanga Richard (Misc. Application No. 13 of 2021)
• Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank (SCCA No. 17 of 2017)
• Muzaire James and Others v Trustees Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal No. C035 of 2022)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Nima Bernice Soigi and Another v Tamira Awo Emily Grace Mbulaiteye (Miscellaneous Application 81 of 2025)

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