Wakilii

Polycarp Sekiboobo v Clare Obonyo [1994] UGSC 2

Supreme Court · 1994 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice for an order extending time to file a fresh memorandum and record of appeal under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs; the Registrar's dismissal order set aside, leaving the underlying appeal pending

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 the application for extension of time must fail, but on a ground other than that argued. There is no provision empowering the Registrar of the Supreme Court to dismiss an appeal; an order that an appeal stands dismissed can only be made by the Court, of which the Registrar is not a member. The Registrar's order purporting to dismiss the appeal under Rule 93(4) was therefore ultra vires and was set aside, with the consequence that the appeal remained pending. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondent, the applicant being left to take the appropriate next step.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs; the Registrar's dismissal order set aside, leaving the underlying appeal pending

Facts

The applicant was the unsuccessful party in a civil suit in the High Court and appealed to the Supreme Court through his then advocates. The record of appeal filed was defective: it did not contain the orders appealed against, and it was an omnibus appeal attacking an order of the Deputy Registrar of the High Court together with two separate orders made by two judges. On realising the mistake, counsel for the applicant sought to withdraw the appeal, but counsel for the respondent resisted. The Registrar of the Supreme Court then closed the file, endorsing that the appeal stood dismissed with costs under Rule 93(4). The applicant changed advocates and applied for an extension of time to file a fresh memorandum and record of appeal, arguing the appeal could be reinstated as it had never been heard on its merits; the respondent argued the dismissed appeal could not be reopened.

Issues

  1. Whether time should be extended to enable the applicant to file a fresh memorandum and record of appeal after the original record was found defective.
  2. Whether the Registrar of the Supreme Court had power to dismiss the appeal.

Orders

  • The Registrar's order that the appeal stands dismissed with costs under Rule 93(4) is vacated and set aside.
  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Powers of the Registrar — Dismissal of Appeals
The Registrar of the Supreme Court has no power to dismiss an appeal; an order that an appeal stands dismissed can only be made by the Court, and the Registrar, not being a member of the Court, acts ultra vires in purporting to make such an order, which is liable to be set aside.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Effect of an Invalid Dismissal Order
Where a purported dismissal of an appeal is a nullity for want of power in the officer who made it, setting that order aside leaves the appeal still pending, so that the appellant may take the appropriate procedural steps.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.93(4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Polycarp Sekiboobo v Clare Obonyo [1994] UGSC 2 (12 July 1994)
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.