Wakilii

Sirima v Hassan (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 294 · 1955 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya dismissal of appeal on grounds it was filed out of time
Decision
Matter remitted to Supreme Court for hearing on the merits

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

Where an appellant sent a memorandum of appeal to the District Registry within the limitation period and the District Registrar endorsed it with the date of receipt before forwarding it to the Supreme Court Registry, the appeal was validly filed on the date of receipt by the District Registry. The appellant had done all in his power to comply with Order XLVI rule 9, and the District Registrar's failure to follow the exact procedural requirements could not prejudice the appellant where the prevailing practice did not involve maintaining a register or receiving fees at district level.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Supreme Court for hearing on the merits

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Eldoret, for Sh. 520 for maize and sacks. The suit was dismissed. On 28 October 1953, within the appeal period, the appellant's advocate sent a memorandum of appeal addressed to the Registrar of the Supreme Court through the District Registrar, Eldoret, enclosing a copy judgment and blank cheque for fees. The District Registrar endorsed the memorandum as received on 28 October 1953 and forwarded it to Nairobi. The Deputy Registrar in Nairobi requested complete addresses and separate cheques, and registered the appeal on 14 November 1953, after the limitation period had expired. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as filed out of time. The prevailing practice at the District Registry was not to maintain a register of appeals or receive fees directly, but to forward papers to Nairobi.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal was validly filed within time when the memorandum of appeal was received and endorsed by the District Registry within the limitation period but registered by the Supreme Court Registry after the period had expired.
  2. Whether the appellant's use of the District Registry as a forwarding mechanism, in accordance with prevailing practice, constituted valid filing under Order XLVI rule 9.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Order of the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal set aside.
  • Matter remitted to the Supreme Court to be heard and determined on the merits.
  • Each party to bear own costs of the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Filing of Memorandum of Appeal — District Registry — Date of Filing
Where the Civil Procedure Rules permit filing of an appeal in a District Registry and the appellant sends the memorandum of appeal to that Registry within the limitation period, receipt and endorsement by the District Registrar constitutes valid filing on that date, notwithstanding subsequent registration by the Supreme Court Registry after the period has expired.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Compliance with Rules — Prevailing Practice — Effect on Appellant
Where an appellant complies with the prevailing practice of a District Registry in filing an appeal, the failure of the District Registrar to follow exactly the procedural requirements of the rules (such as maintaining a register or receiving fees directly) cannot prejudice the appellant who has done all in his power to comply with the rules.
Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Special Leave — Value of Subject Matter
No second appeal lies where the value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed one thousand shillings unless special leave has first been obtained from the second appellate court, but such leave may be granted where the appeal involves a question of practice of some importance.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Ordinance s.74
  • Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order XLVI rule 9

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sirima v Hassan (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1955) [1955] EACA 294 (1 January 1955)
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.