Sulaiti Dungu v Kateera G. Akugizibwe (Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2015)

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 dismissed a second appeal against a High Court ruling striking out a civil appeal for non-service of the notice and memorandum of appeal. The Court held that while there is no mandatory legal obligation on a party to obtain the record of proceedings, litigants must act diligently and take essential steps to prosecute an appeal. The appellant, having lodged a notice of appeal but failed to serve the respondent and taken no further visible step, exhibited dilatory conduct. The Court found the appellant had no defensible cause and that the trial judge did not err in considering the merits to impute dilatory conduct. Dilatory conduct defeats a party's right to be heard.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court ruling striking out Civil Appeal No. 0010 of 2012 upheld

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit against the appellant at the Chief Magistrate's Court at Masindi. Judgment was entered in default. The appellant applied for unconditional leave to file a defence and to set aside the default judgment, but the application was dismissed. The appellant obtained leave to appeal to the High Court and lodged Civil Appeal No. 0010 of 2012. The respondent applied to strike out the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not served the notice and memorandum of appeal within the prescribed time. The High Court allowed the application and struck out the appeal. The underlying dispute concerned the allocation of a civil service house to sitting tenants; the property had been allocated to a deceased person whose administrator sold it to a third party, while the appellant had already received a separate allocation and had been warned he could not receive a second. The appellant conceded that he served the respondent late but contended the irregularity was curable.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in striking out the appeal on technical grounds and thereby denying the appellant a hearing.
2. Whether the trial judge erred by relying on the merits of the matter and facts constituting matters for trial to infer dilatory conduct.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.30(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 r.10

Cases cited (7)

• Fr. Narcensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Executive Director of National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) v Solid State Limited (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2015)
• Pandya Vs R [1957] EA 336
• Okeno v Republic (1972) E.A. 32
• Charles B. Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985)
• Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd [1987] AC 18

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Odero v Obokoli and Another (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 0008 OF 2023)
• Egesa v Mangeni and Another (Civil Appeal 8 of 2023)
• The Registered trustees of Soroti Catholic Diocese v Echodu and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 32 of 2022)

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