Selimu Kaladini v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1992)
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
Held that a notice of appeal is filed when it is presented to the criminal Registry with payment of the necessary fees, not when the District Registrar administratively signs the receipt. Where the notice was received on 13/10/92 and fees paid on 14/10/92, both within 14 days of the 7/10/92 sentence, the notice was filed in time despite the Registrar's certificate showing a later date of 10/3/93. Preliminary objection rejected.
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed; criminal appeal to proceed.
Facts
The appellant was sentenced on 7/10/92. The notice of appeal was received at the District Registry on 13/10/92 and the filing fees were paid on 14/10/92. However, the District Registrar's certificate indicated the notice was received on 10/3/93. Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the notice of appeal was filed out of time, arguing that the certificate date of 10/3/93 was beyond the statutory 14-day period from sentencing. The court examined the record including receipts for the notice and fees.
Issues
- Whether the notice of appeal was filed out of time.
Orders
- Preliminary objection rejected.
- Notice of appeal found to have been filed in time.
Rules and key headnotes
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.