Wakilii

Stephen Mabosi v Uganda Revenue Authority [1996] UGSC 2

Supreme Court · 1996 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application in the Supreme Court to strike out a notice of appeal for failure to institute the appeal within time
Decision
Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed by majority; the respondent's appeal allowed to stand

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

By majority (Odoki JSC and Manyindo DCJ, Tsekooko JSC dissenting), the Supreme Court held that the statement in the respondent's notice of appeal — that it would formulate grounds on receipt of the record of proceedings — addressed to the Registrar who held the record, amounted to a written application for a copy of the proceedings under rule 81(2). The respondent had substantially complied with the Rules and could rely on the proviso to rule 81(1), so that time ran from 22 June 1995 when the proceedings were supplied. The appeal lodged on 30 June 1995 was therefore within the sixty-day period, and the application to strike out the notice of appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed by majority; the respondent's appeal allowed to stand

Facts

The applicant obtained judgment in the High Court against the respondent. On 7 February 1995 the respondent lodged a notice of appeal whose second paragraph stated that the intended appellant would formulate its grounds of appeal on receipt of the record of proceedings and the ruling of the court. The respondent did not file a separate written application for a copy of the proceedings, but wrote to the Registrar on 20 March 1995, with a reminder on 15 May 1995, asking that preparation of the record be expedited. On 22 June 1995 the Registrar certified that copies of the proceedings, exhibits and judgment applied for by counsel for the defendant on 7 February 1995 were sent on that date. The respondent lodged its appeal on 30 June 1995. The applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal, contending that the appeal had been instituted out of time and that the respondent had not made the written application for proceedings required by rule 81(2) within thirty days of the decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the statement in the second paragraph of the notice of appeal amounted to an application for a copy of the proceedings under rule 81(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the respondent was entitled to rely on the proviso to rule 81(1) so as to exclude the time taken to prepare the record of proceedings in computing the sixty-day period for instituting the appeal.
  3. Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to institute the appeal within the prescribed time.

Orders

  • Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed (by majority, Tsekooko JSC dissenting).
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Application for copy of proceedings under rule 81(2) — Form of application
An application for a copy of the proceedings under rule 81(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court need take no prescribed form; it is sufficient that the request is in writing, addressed to the Registrar, made within thirty days of the decision, requests a copy of the proceedings, and a copy is sent to the respondent.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of appeal — Whether statement of intention to formulate grounds on receipt of record amounts to an application for proceedings
A statement in a notice of appeal, addressed to the Registrar who holds the record, that the appellant will formulate its grounds of appeal on receipt of the record of proceedings may be construed as a written application for a copy of the proceedings satisfying rule 81(2).
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Computation of time — Proviso to rule 81(1)
Where a valid application for a copy of the proceedings has been made, the time certified by the Registrar as required for preparation and delivery of the record is excluded in computing the sixty days within which an appeal must be instituted, so that time runs from the date the proceedings are supplied to the appellant.
Statutory Interpretation — Rules of court — Substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities
Substantive justice is to be administered without undue regard to technicalities, and a diligent appellant who has substantially complied with the Rules of the Court should not be driven from the seat of judgment.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.74
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.80
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.82
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)(e)
  • Criminal Procedure Act s.326(3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Kitariko v Twino-Katama (Civil Application No. 6 of 1982)
  • M.A. Bhegani v J.O. Ochola (Civil Application No. 4 of 1987)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stephen Mabosi v Uganda Revenue Authority [1996] UGSC 2 (1 February 1996)
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.