Rukeija Simon and Others v Tumwesigye Michael (Civil Appeal 30 of 2020)

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.

Holding

The High Court held that while the Memorandum of Appeal was not served within the mandatory 21-day period under Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the omission of counsel should not be visited upon lay litigants. Following Godfrey Magezi v Sudir Rupaleria, the court exercised its discretion to grant the appellants five days to effect service rather than dismiss the appeal.

Outcome

Appellants granted leave to effect service; appeal to proceed

Facts

The appellants filed their Memorandum of Appeal on 20 August 2020 against a judgment of the Magistrate Grade One Court delivered on 21 July 2020. The lower court record was received on 25 November 2020. Neither the Memorandum of Appeal nor the lower court record was served on the respondent. On 23 November 2022, the respondent's counsel objected to the competence of the appeal, arguing that the Memorandum should have been served within 21 days under Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The appellants, appearing in person after their lawyer withdrew, argued that the failure to serve was the mistake of their former counsel, Alice Namara & Co. Advocates, and should not be visited upon them as lay litigants.

Issues

1. Whether the appeal is incompetent for failure to serve the Memorandum of Appeal on the Respondent within 21 days of filing.
2. Whether the mistake or omission of counsel in failing to effect service should be visited upon the appellants.

Orders

• The Appellants are granted 5 days within which to effect service of the Memorandum of Appeal and the record of the lower Court upon the Respondent's Counsel.
• The written submissions filed by the Appellants on 27/04/2022 are struck out for being filed without authorization.
• The costs of these proceedings shall abide the outcome of the Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 1(3)
• Civil Procedure Act s.98

Cases cited (2)

• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
• Godfrey Magezi and Another v Sudir Rupaleria [2004] UGSC 25

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