Uganda Baati v Mubangizi Julius (Civil Application 7 of 2020)
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 Supreme Court struck out the respondent's notice of appeal. Having lodged the notice on 25 June 2015, the respondent took no further step to institute or prosecute the appeal — filing neither a memorandum nor record of appeal nor any request for the lower court record — contrary to rule 79. Adopting Lord Woolf's reasoning in Arbuthnot Latham Bank Ltd v Trafalgar Holdings Ltd against the warehousing of stale proceedings, the Court held that a party who delays inordinately and shows no intention to pursue an appeal cannot keep it pending indefinitely. The respondent having lost interest, the notice of appeal was struck out under rule 78 with costs to the applicant.
Outcome
Notice of appeal struck out with costs to the applicant
Facts
The respondent had been employed by the applicant as a roller man in its factory and suffered an industrial accident that reduced his capacity and led to his dismissal. He sued for wrongful dismissal, terminal benefits and general damages. After interlocutory disputes over the applicant's late defence and an ex-parte hearing order, the matter reached the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the respondent's appeal with costs. The respondent then lodged a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court on 25 June 2015. Thereafter he took no step to institute the appeal: he filed no memorandum or record of appeal and made no request for the lower court record. His advocates had lost contact with him and declined service of the strike-out application, and his whereabouts were unknown. The applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal for non-compliance with the Rules.
Issues
- Whether the respondent's notice of appeal should be struck out where he failed to institute the appeal by filing a memorandum and record of appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- Notice of Appeal lodged by the respondent on 25 June 2015 struck out.
- Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.78
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.79
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.80
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.72
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.53(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.10
- Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.11
Cases cited (1)
- Arbuthnot Latham Bank Ltd v Trafalgar Holdings Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1426
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.