Uganda Electricity Board v Charles Kabagambe (Civil Appeal No. 58 2000)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal overruled a preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent because the record of appeal lacked a formally extracted order. The Court held that the respondent should have proceeded under Rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules to strike out the notice of appeal and, having failed to do so, was barred by Rule 101(b) from raising the competence objection. The Court further held that under Rule 86(1)(g) the record of appeal need only contain the judgment or reasoned order, not a formally extracted decree, whose extraction is no longer a legal requirement and would offend Article 126(e) of the Constitution requiring justice without undue regard to technicalities. The objection was found frivolous and overruled with costs.

Outcome

Preliminary objection overruled with costs; appeal to proceed to hearing

Facts

Uganda Electricity Board appealed against a ruling of the High Court (Magezi J.) granting an interim injunction to Charles Kabagambe, who had sought to restrain the Board from evicting him from a house at Plot No.8 Windsor Crescent, Kololo. At the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the court lacked jurisdiction because the record of appeal did not contain a formally extracted order as allegedly required by law. The court addressed only this preliminary objection in this ruling.

Issues

1. Whether the appeal was incompetent for want of a formally extracted order in the record of appeal.
2. Whether the respondent was barred from raising the competence objection by Rule 101(b) for failing to proceed under Rule 81.

Orders

• The preliminary objection is overruled with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 134(2)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(e)
• Civil Procedure Act s.68
• Judicature Act s.11
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 18 r 4
• Court of Appeal Rules 1996 Rule 1(1) and (2)
• Court of Appeal Rules 1996 Rule 81
• Court of Appeal Rules 1996 Rule 86(1)(g)
• Court of Appeal Rules 1996 Rule 86(10)
• Court of Appeal Rules 1996 Rule 101(b)

Cases cited (3)

• Standard Chartered Bank (Uganda) Limited v Grand Hotel (Uganda) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1999)
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Application No. 42 of 1998)
• Kibuka Musoke William and Another v Dr. Appollo Kaggwa (Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1997)

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