Wakilii

Shahi v Krishna Stores (C.A. 26-1934.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1935] EACA 19 · 1935 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya judgment which had allowed an appeal from First Class Magistrate's Court
Decision
Appeal allowed on limitation grounds; judgment of First Class Magistrate dismissing the suit restored

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 of Appeal held that section 65(2) of the Civil Procedure Ordinance, which requires appeals from Subordinate Courts to be filed within thirty days, abrogates all conflicting provisions of the Indian Limitation Act including section 12. The words "notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Limitation Act" are absolute and exclude both the periods prescribed in the Limitation Act and the method of computing time under section 12. An application for a copy of a decree is made when received by the court, not when posted. The appeal was therefore time-barred and should not have been entertained.

Outcome

Appeal allowed on limitation grounds; judgment of First Class Magistrate dismissing the suit restored

Facts

The Krishna Stores sued B. D. Shahi in the First Class Magistrate's Court at Nyeri for Sh. 60 rent. The Magistrate dismissed the suit with costs on 18 April 1934. The Krishna Stores filed a Memorandum of Appeal to the Supreme Court on 17 May 1934 but did not file the certified copy of the decree until 19 June 1934. The Supreme Court held the appeal was in time, applying section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act to exclude the time for obtaining the decree copy. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on the merits. Shahi then appealed to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa on the ground that the first appeal was filed outside the thirty-day period prescribed by section 65(2) of the Civil Procedure Ordinance.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal filed more than thirty days after the decree was time-barred under section 65(2) of the Civil Procedure Ordinance.
  2. Whether section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, which excludes time for obtaining copies, applies notwithstanding section 65(2) of the Civil Procedure Ordinance.
  3. Whether an application for a copy of a decree is made when posted or when received by the court.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Costs awarded to the appellant in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court.
  • Judgment of the First Class Magistrate restored.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time for Filing — Statutory Limitation Period
Where a local statute prescribes a specific period for filing appeals and states that it applies "notwithstanding anything contained" in another Act, the local statute abrogates all provisions of that other Act which would contradict or modify the prescribed period, including provisions relating to the computation of time.
Statutory Interpretation — Non-Obstante Clauses — Effect of "Notwithstanding" Language
The words "notwithstanding anything contained" in a statute are absolute in their meaning and are not restricted to particular portions of the referenced Act. They mean "in spite of anything contained" and abrogate the referenced Act in its entirety insofar as it conflicts with the provision containing the non-obstante clause.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Application for Copies — When Application is Made
An application in writing for a copy of a decree is made when it is received by the proper authority, not when it is posted. The preparation and despatch of an application are preliminary steps only.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Filing Requirements — Memorandum and Certified Copy
An appeal is not filed until both the Memorandum of Appeal and the certified copy of the decree are lodged with the court. Where the statute prescribes a fixed period for filing without provision for excluding time, both documents must be filed within that period.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Ordinance s.65(2)
  • Indian Limitation Act 1877 s.12
  • Civil Procedure Code Order 39 Rule 1

Cases cited (1)

  • Qasim Ali Khan v Bhagwanta Kunwar (40 Allahabad 12)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Shahi v Krishna Stores (C.A. 26-1934.) [1935] EACA 19 (1 January 1935)
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.