Wakilii

Robert Kitariko v David Twino-Katama (Civil Application No. 6 of 1982)

Court of Appeal · [1982] UGCA 1 · 1982 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out a notice of appeal filed in respect of an interlocutory order made in an election petition
Decision
Notice of appeal struck out with costs; appeal deemed withdrawn under r.82

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 although the final determination of an election petition is not appealable under Article 51(3) of the Constitution and s.66 of the National Assembly (Elections) Act, an interlocutory order made by an election judge is appealable with leave by virtue of ss.68 and 77 of the Civil Procedure Act and O.40 r.1(2) of the Rules. However, the respondent had failed to institute the appeal within 60 days, failed to apply for the record within 30 days, and failed to serve the application on the applicant, so he could not rely on the proviso to r.81(1). Under r.82 the notice of appeal was deemed withdrawn and was struck out with costs.

Outcome

Notice of appeal struck out with costs; appeal deemed withdrawn under r.82

Facts

On 4 November 1981, during the trial of an election petition, the election judge ordered the list of objections struck out. The respondent obtained leave to appeal and filed a notice of appeal on 11 November 1981 but took no further step to prosecute the appeal. The applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal on two grounds: that no appeal lies from an order made in an election petition, and alternatively that any appeal had not been instituted within 60 days of filing the notice of appeal. The respondent's counsel had applied in writing for a copy of the proceedings only on 12 March 1982, well outside the 30-day period, and had not served a copy of that application on the applicant's advocates. Counsel conceded the application for the record was out of time and offered no explanation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order made by an election judge in an election petition.
  2. Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to institute the appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Court.

Orders

  • The notice of appeal is struck out.
  • Costs to the applicant and the Returning Officer.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Appealability of Interlocutory Orders
While the final determination of an election petition is not subject to appeal under Article 51(3) of the Constitution and s.66 of the National Assembly (Elections) Act, an interlocutory order made by an election judge in an election petition is appealable with the leave of the court by virtue of ss.68 and 77 of the Civil Procedure Act and O.40 r.1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Application of Civil Procedure Act and Rules
By virtue of r.22 of the Election Petitions Directions, the trial of an election petition follows as nearly as possible the trial of a suit and is governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules, thereby subjecting election petitions to all incidents of that Act and its Rules.
Civil Procedure — Institution of Appeals — Time Limits and the Proviso to Rule 81(1)
An appellant who fails to apply for a copy of the proceedings within 30 days of the decision, and who fails to serve a copy of that application on the opposing party as required by r.81(2), cannot rely on the proviso to r.81(1) to exclude the time taken preparing the record, and must institute the appeal within 60 days of lodging the notice of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Appeal — Deemed Withdrawal under Rule 82
Where a party who lodged a notice of appeal fails to institute the appeal within the appointed time, the notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn under r.82, and a subsequent out-of-time application for the record cannot revive it.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Requirement of Material to Exercise Discretion
The rules of court must prima facie be obeyed, and in order to justify a court in extending time for a step in procedure there must be some material on which the court can exercise its discretion; otherwise a party in breach would enjoy an unqualified right to extension, defeating the purpose of the rules.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (3)

  • Mudavadi v. Kibisu (1070) E.A. 585
  • C.Devan Nair V. Yong Kuan Teik (1967) 2 A.C. 31
  • Ratnam v. Cumarasamy (1964) 3 All. E.R. 933

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Robert Kitariko v David Twino-Katama (Civil Application No. 6 of 1982) [1982] UGCA 1 (9 November 1982)
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.