Wakilii

Ribeiro v Facho and Another (Privy Council App. No. 102-34.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1936] EACA 1 · 1936 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal by special leave from Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa dismissing application for leave to appeal out of time
Decision
Application for leave to appeal out of time refused; appeal dismissed

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 Privy Council held that a party wishing to appeal from a judgment has a duty to apply to have it drawn up in the form of a decree to enable timely lodging of appeal. Where an appellant fails to take such steps, the court may in its discretion refuse leave to appeal out of time. The Court of Appeal properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application for leave to appeal out of time.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal out of time refused; appeal dismissed

Facts

Respondents sued the appellant and their mother as co-trustees for an account of trust property administration. On 19 August 1932, the Supreme Court of Kenya delivered judgment ordering all defendants to furnish accounts, but no formal decree was drawn up. An account was taken before the Registrar, who on 19 June 1933 found the appellant liable for Sh. 101,615. On 26 June 1933, the Chief Justice confirmed the report and a decree was drawn up, entered, and ante-dated to 19 August 1932. On 16 September 1933, the appellant submitted a memorandum of appeal, which the Registrar refused to accept as out of time. The appellant applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal out of time, which was dismissed on 10 January 1934.

Issues

  1. Whether the memorandum of appeal was timeously lodged where the decree was ante-dated to the date of the original judgment.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal properly exercised its discretion in refusing leave to appeal out of time.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellant to pay costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Duty to Have Judgment Drawn Up as Decree
It is the duty of a party who wishes to appeal from a judgment to apply to have it drawn up in the form of a decree so that the appeal may be lodged within the prescribed time.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Discretion of Court
Where an appellant has failed to take steps to have a judgment drawn up as a decree, the court may in its discretion refuse leave to appeal out of time, and such discretion will not be interfered with on appeal absent strong reasons.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Eastern African Court of Appeal Rules 1925 r.6
  • Eastern African Court of Appeal Rules 1925 r.8(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.18 r.7
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924 s.2(4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Jivanji v Jivanji (12 K.L.R. 41)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ribeiro v Facho and Another (Privy Council App. No. 102-34.) [1936] EACA 1 (1 January 1936)
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.