Wakilii

Tumuramye v Shengli Eng Construction Company Limited (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 136 · 2022 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from ruling of Assistant Registrar dismissing applications for execution of consent judgment
Decision
Appeal struck out as time-barred

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

The court struck out the appeal as time-barred. An appeal from a Registrar's ruling must be filed within seven days under section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Where an appellant seeks to exclude time under section 79(2) on the basis of awaiting typed proceedings, the appellant must file and serve on the respondent a written request for those proceedings. The court found that the appellant's letter requesting proceedings was not served on the respondent and was backdated after the appeal was filed, constituting an improper attempt to circumvent the time bar.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as time-barred

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent for breach of contract in Civil Suit No. 001 of 2019, which was settled by consent judgment. The respondent allegedly failed to restore the appellant's land as agreed. The appellant contracted a third party to restore a borrow pit at a cost of UGX 140,664,000 and sought to recover this sum by attaching and selling the respondent's vehicles and equipment. The Assistant Registrar stayed execution and set aside the warrant of attachment. The appellant appealed that ruling to the High Court on 24 February 2022, fourteen days after the Registrar delivered the ruling on 10 February 2022. The appellant claimed to have requested typed proceedings on 14 February 2022, but this letter was not served on the respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was filed within the statutory time limit prescribed by section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
  2. Whether the purported letter requesting typed and certified proceedings was validly served and on record at the relevant time
  3. Whether the time taken by the Registrar to prepare a copy of proceedings should be excluded from the computation of the limitation period under section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The appeal is struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Time — Exclusion of Time for Preparation of Record
An appellant seeking to benefit from the exclusion of time under section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act while awaiting typed proceedings must file a written request for those proceedings and serve it on the opposite party; a purported request that is not served and appears on record only after objection is raised will be treated as backdated and cannot constitute good cause for admitting a late appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Appeals from Registrar's Orders — Seven-Day Limitation
An appeal against a Registrar's order must be filed within seven days from the date of the order under section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act; an appeal filed outside this period without leave of court is incompetent and must be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Service of Documents — Requirement to Serve Requests for Typed Proceedings
A request for typed and certified proceedings under Order 43 rule 10(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, read with Order 49 rule 2, must be served on the opposite party in the manner provided for service of summons; failure to serve the request undermines its validity and the court will view with suspicion any such document that appears on record without proof of service.
Civil Procedure — Practice and Procedure — Backdating of Documents — Judicial Discretion
Courts must abhor the practice of backdating documents and causing them to appear on the court record retrospectively to circumvent statutory time limits; a party that comes to court without clean hands by engaging in such conduct will not be granted judicial discretion to extend time.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • Muwonge v Salongo (HCCA No. 98 of 2018)
  • Maria Onyango Ochola & Ors v J. Hannington Wasswa [1996] HCB 43

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tumuramye v Shengli Eng Construction Company Limited (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 136 (16 July 2022)
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.