Skill Consultants v Pearl Flowers Limited (Civil Application 41 of 1996)

Observed later treatment

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

On an application to strike out an intended appeal, the Supreme Court held the appeal incompetent on two grounds. First, service of a notice of appeal on a person affected by the intended appeal within the prescribed time is an essential step under rule 80; the notice here was served outside the required period. Second, the appeal was lodged about 58 days out of time from the deadline, and the respondent could not rely on the proviso excluding time for preparing the record of proceedings because no written application for the proceedings, copied to the intended respondent, was shown. No leave for extension of time had been obtained. The application was allowed and the appeal struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application granted; the respondent's appeal struck out as incompetent with costs

Facts

The respondent intended to appeal against a judgment of Porter J delivered on 5 June 1995 in High Court Civil Suit No. 628 of 1994. The respondent served its notice of appeal on the applicant on 20 June 1995. The record of appeal was lodged in the Supreme Court on 6 October 1995. The applicant contended that under the Rules of the Supreme Court the notice of appeal ought to have been served within the prescribed period and the appeal filed within 60 days of the notice (by about 8 August 1995). The respondent argued that delays in the High Court Registry, and the time taken to prepare the record of proceedings (collected in August 1995), excused the delay. No leave of court for extension of time to serve the notice or to lodge the appeal had been sought or obtained.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent's notice of appeal was served on the applicant within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Supreme Court.
2. Whether the respondent's appeal was lodged within time, and whether it was rendered incompetent by being filed out of time without leave of court.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• Appeal struck out as incompetent.
• Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.80
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.76(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(1)

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.

• Dr. S.B. Kinyatta and Another v Subramanian Gopalan and Another (Civil Application 108 of 2003)

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