Wakilii

Uganda Revenue Authority v Bushenyi Commercial AG and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 54 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 21 · 1998 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to lodge appeal out of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, met by a preliminary objection.
Decision
Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents

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 held that an application to lodge an appeal out of time was incompetent because the notice of appeal supporting it had earlier been struck out, leaving no notice of appeal in existence. Rule 82 presupposes that an appeal is lodged after a notice of appeal has been lodged and remains in existence. Counsel for the applicant argued he had intended to seek leave to lodge a fresh notice of appeal, but the court held it goes by the document actually filed, whose wording sought to lodge the appeal itself, not a fresh notice. The application was struck out with costs to the respondents.

Outcome

Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant, Uganda Revenue Authority, had lodged a notice of appeal on 12 July 1997, which was subsequently struck out. It then brought an application under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking to lodge the appeal out of time. At the hearing, counsel for the first respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was incompetent because there was no notice of appeal in existence to support it, the earlier notice having been struck out. Counsel for the applicant submitted that he had actually intended to seek leave to lodge a fresh notice of appeal after the earlier one was struck out, but the notice of motion as drafted sought to lodge the appeal itself. The court found the application incompetent on the basis of the document as filed.

Issues

  1. Whether an application to lodge an appeal out of time is competent where the notice of appeal has been struck out and no notice of appeal is in existence.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Application to lodge appeal out of time — Requirement of a subsisting notice of appeal
An application to lodge an appeal out of time is incompetent where the notice of appeal has been struck out, since rule 82 presupposes that an appeal is lodged only after a notice of appeal has been lodged and remains in existence.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Court bound by document as filed
The court goes by the document actually filed; where counsel's stated intention differs from the clear wording of the notice of motion, the court will act on the document as drafted rather than the unexpressed intention.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Court of Appeal Rules rule 4
  • Court of Appeal Rules rule 82

Cases cited (1)

  • Delia Almeida v CR Carmo Rui Almeida (Civil Application No. 15 of 1990)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Revenue Authority v Bushenyi Commercial AG and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 54 of 1997) [1998] UGCA 21 (21 January 1998)
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.