Standard Chartered Bank (u) Ltd v Mwesigwa (Civil Application No. 0138 of 2013)

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

The Court of Appeal overruled preliminary objections, holding that advocates conducting a matter may swear affidavits on facts within their knowledge, distinguishing Banco Arabe Espanol, and that an undated affidavit was a curable oversight under Article 126(2)(e). On the merits, the Court held under rule 76(4) that it was not necessary to obtain leave or a certificate before lodging a notice of appeal, so the notice could and should have been filed without first awaiting leave. Since the respondent filed the notice of appeal on 12 February 2013, three months after the 9 November 2012 ruling, it was out of time. The application was allowed, the notice of appeal struck out, and costs awarded to the applicant.

Outcome

Application allowed and the respondent's notice of appeal struck out for being out of time

Facts

The respondent filed HCCS No. 30 of 2010 against the applicant bank claiming UGX 12,994,762 for alleged breach of contract and negligence. The applicant filed a written statement of defence which was struck out for not having been served within the time appointed by law. The applicant then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 477 of 2012 seeking extension of time to file and serve the defence, which the court granted by ruling delivered on 9 November 2012. The respondent filed a notice of appeal against that ruling, together with a request for a typed copy of the proceedings, on 12 February 2013. The applicant brought this application to strike out the notice of appeal on the ground that it was filed about three months after the ruling and therefore out of time. The respondent contended the notice was timely because it was filed shortly after obtaining leave to appeal granted on 6 February 2013.

Issues

1. Whether the application was incompetent because the advocates who swore the supporting affidavits lacked authority and could not depose to contentious matters.
2. Whether an undated affidavit in rejoinder rendered the application incompetent.
3. Whether the respondent's notice of appeal was filed out of time and should be struck out under rule 82.

Orders

• The preliminary objections are overruled.
• The application is allowed.
• The Notice of Appeal lodged on 12 February 2013 is struck out for being filed out of time.
• Costs are awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.76(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.76(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.76(4)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.82
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.44(1)
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations r.9
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (3)

• Kasibante Moses v Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 7 of 2012)
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
• Andrew Maviri v Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 224 of 2014)

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.

• Micro Credit For Development And Transformation Cooperative (SACCO) v Semanda (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 101 of 2021)

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