Wakilii

Riberio v Facho and Another (C.A. 21-1933)

East African Court of Appeal · [1937] EACA 1 · 1937 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time from Supreme Court judgment
Decision
Application for leave to appeal out of time refused

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 dismissed the application for leave to appeal out of time. After delivery of judgment on 19th August 1932, the applicant could and should have taken steps to ensure his appeal was filed within time. A mistake by counsel as to the effect of the judgment does not constitute special circumstances justifying an extension of time. The judgment against the applicant was expressed in unequivocal terms for a definite amount, and the fact that execution was stayed pending taking of accounts between other parties did not affect the applicant's obligation to appeal within the prescribed period.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal out of time refused

Facts

The applicant was the third defendant in proceedings in the Supreme Court. On 19th August 1932, judgment was delivered against him for a definite sum of Rs. 22,000 plus interest at a fixed rate, although execution was stayed pending the taking of accounts between the first and second defendants. No appeal was filed within the three-month period prescribed by Rule 8 of the Court of Appeal Rules. In September 1933, more than a year after the judgment, the applicant drafted a memorandum of appeal and took it to the Registrar, who ruled that an application for leave to appeal out of time was necessary. The applicant then brought this application, arguing that the judgment of 19th August 1932 was only a preliminary judgment and that time should run from the final decree dated 27th July 1933.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal out of time under Rule 8 of the Eastern Africa Court of Appeal Rules 1925.
  2. Whether the judgment of 19th August 1932 was a preliminary or final decree for purposes of calculating the time for appeal.
  3. Whether a mistake by counsel as to the effect of a judgment constitutes special circumstances justifying leave to appeal out of time.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Leave to Appeal Out of Time
After delivery of judgment, a party against whom judgment has been given must take steps to ensure that any appeal is filed within the prescribed time limit, and failure to do so cannot be excused merely because subsequent procedural steps not affecting that party had to be taken.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Mistake of Counsel
A mistake by a litigant or counsel as to the effect of a judgment or as to the time within which an appeal must be filed does not per se constitute special circumstances justifying the grant of leave to appeal out of time.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Special Circumstances
Special circumstances that may justify granting leave to appeal out of time include misleading conduct by the other side, mistakes made by officers of the court that misled a party, or sudden unforeseen accidents such as death, but do not include a party's own miscalculation or misunderstanding of procedural rules.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Eastern Africa Court of Appeal Rules 1925 Rule 8
  • Order XVIII Rules 13
  • Order XVIII Rules 14
  • Order XVIII Rules 15
  • Order 62

Cases cited (13)

  • 37 Bom. 480
  • 38 Bom. 331
  • Jivanji v Jivanji (12 K.L.R. 41)
  • Re Manchester Economic Building Society (24 Ch. Div. 497)
  • International Financial Society v City of Moscow Gas Co (7 Ch. Div. 241)
  • Craig v Phillips (7 Ch. Div. 249)
  • Collins v The Vestry of Paddington (5 Q.B.D. 368)
  • Esdaile v Payne (40 Ch. Div. 520)
  • Nicholson v Piper ((1907) 24 T.L.R. 16)
  • In re Coles and Ravenshear (1907 1 K.B. 1)
  • In re Helsby (1894 1 Q.B.D. 742)
  • Cusack v London and North-Western Railway Co (1891 1 Q.B.D. 347)
  • Sugden v Lord St. Leonards and Others (1 P. Div. 209)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Riberio v Facho and Another (C.A. 21-1933) [1937] EACA 1 (1 January 1937)
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.