Wakilii

Tight Security Ltd v Chartis Uganda Insurance Company Ltd & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2014)

High Court · [2014] UGCOMMC 11 · 2014 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrates Court judgment in civil suit for breach of security services contract
Decision
Appeal struck out for being filed out of time without leave of court

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

Held that an appeal filed out of time without leave is incompetent. Where an intending appellant applies for a record of proceedings, such application must be made within the 30-day limitation period running from the date of judgment to benefit from the time exclusion under section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. The time required for preparing the decree and proceedings is excluded only if the appellant applied before expiry of the limitation period. In this case, the decree was availed to the appellant on 5 April 2013 but the memorandum of appeal was lodged on 20 June 2013, approximately 45 days out of time. Appeal struck out as incompetent with costs.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for being filed out of time without leave of court

Facts

The appellant appealed against a judgment of the Chief Magistrates Court Mengo dated 1 March 2013 awarding the respondents UGX 5,796,190 and USD 7,061 as special damages, UGX 4,500,000 as general damages, interest at 20% per annum, and costs. The decree was extracted on 3 April 2013 and served on the appellant on 5 April 2013. The appellant applied for a certified copy of the proceedings on 1 March 2013 and again on 22 April 2013. The memorandum of appeal was lodged on 20 June 2013. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent as it was filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed under section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act. The underlying suit concerned a breach of a security services contract with a limitation clause capping compensation at UGX 2,500,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant's appeal was competent having regard to the time within which it was filed.
  2. Whether time for filing the memorandum of appeal begins to run from the date of judgment or from the date certified copies of proceedings are supplied to the intending appellant.
  3. Whether an application for a record of proceedings can be made after the expiry of the statutory limitation period.
  4. Whether the exclusion of time under section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act for preparing the decree and proceedings applies where the appellant did not apply for the record within the 30-day limitation period.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Time for Filing Appeal
Under section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, every appeal must be entered within 30 days from the date of the decree or order of the court. Section 79(2) excludes the time taken by the court in making a copy of the decree or order appealed against and of the proceedings upon which it is founded, but this exclusion applies only where the intending appellant has applied for such copies before the expiry of the limitation period.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Application for Record of Proceedings — Timing of Application
An application for a record of proceedings must be made within the 30-day limitation period running from the date of judgment, not from the date the decree is issued. Where an appellant applies for a record after the limitation period has expired, the appellant cannot rely on section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act to exclude the time taken for preparing the record.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Commencement of Limitation Period — Date of Judgment versus Date of Decree
For purposes of reckoning the limitation period for filing an appeal, time begins to run from the date of judgment. The date of the decree under Order 21 rule 7(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules bears the date of the day on which judgment was delivered, and this is the date from which the limitation period runs for purposes of applying for the record of proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Incompetent Appeals — Filing Out of Time without Leave
An appeal filed out of time without the leave of court is incompetent and must be struck out. Where an appellant delays filing beyond the statutory period, the appellant must apply for and obtain leave to file the appeal out of time under section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Proof of Time of Supply of Record — Burden on Appellant
For an appellant to rely on section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act to exclude the time taken for preparation of the decree and record of proceedings, it is incumbent upon the appellant to supply the court with evidence of when the record was availed. Without such evidence, the court will rely on the date the decree was supplied to reckon the limitation period.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Record of Proceedings — Certification not Mandatory
Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act does not require the production of a certified copy of the decree and proceedings for purposes of filing an appeal. Certification is merely good practice since the original file can be sent for by the High Court. A copy of the proceedings upon which the decree or order appealed against is founded is sufficient.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Maria Onyango Ochola and Others v J Hannington Wasswa [1996] HCB 43
  • Hajj Mohammed Nyanzi v Ali Segne [1992-1993] HCB 218
  • James Motoigo t/a Juris Office v Shell (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0068 of 2007)
  • Godfrey Tuwangye Kazzora v Georgina Katarikwenda [1992-1993] HCB 145
  • Evaristo Mugabi v Attorney General [1992-1993] HCB 169

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tight Security Ltd v Chartis Uganda Insurance Company Ltd & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2014) [2014] UGCommC 11 (24 January 2014)
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.