Wakilii

Utex Industries Limited v Attorney General (Civil Application 52 of 95)

Court of Appeal · [1997] UGCA 14 · 1997 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to strike out a notice of appeal for failure to comply with the rules governing institution and service of appeals
Decision
Notice of appeal struck out with costs to the applicant

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

On an application to strike out a notice of appeal, the court held that although the notice of appeal had been served in time, the respondent failed to comply with Rules 81(1) and 81(2). The written request for the record of proceedings was never copied or served on the intended respondent, and no registrar's certificate of the time required for preparation was obtained. Rule 4 could not save the appeal since no application had been made to enlarge time, and Article 126(2)(e) does not override procedural rules that provide timetables to avoid delay. The application was granted and the notice of appeal struck out with costs.

Outcome

Notice of appeal struck out with costs to the applicant

Facts

The applicant had obtained judgment against the respondent (Attorney General) in the High Court, delivered on 4th August 1995, in a suit concerning damages arising from a police action. The respondent filed a notice of appeal in the High Court on 18th August 1995 and, on 5th September 1995, wrote to the Deputy Registrar requesting typed proceedings of the trial court. That request letter was neither copied nor sent to the applicant. The respondent filed no memorandum or record of appeal until December 1996, and even then filed them in the Court of Appeal rather than in the Supreme Court. The record of proceedings was available in counsel's office by April 1995. The respondent explained delay by lack of funds (about shs. 167,000) needed to prepare the record, which required requisition taking about five months. The applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal for non-compliance with the rules on institution and service of appeals.

Issues

  1. Whether the notice of appeal was served on the applicant within the time prescribed by Rule 76.
  2. Whether the respondent instituted the appeal within sixty days as required by Rule 81(1).
  3. Whether the respondent complied with Rule 81(2) requiring that a copy of the written request for proceedings be sent to the intended respondent.
  4. Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out for non-compliance with the rules, or whether it could be saved by Rule 4 or Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • The application succeeds.
  • The Notice of Appeal is struck out.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Service of Notice of Appeal — Burden to Prove Late Service
Where two copies of a notice of appeal bear different dating, the party alleging late service must adduce evidence; in the absence of an affidavit explaining a date written on one copy, the court prefers the account that service was effected within the prescribed time under Rule 76.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Proviso to Rule 81(1) — Mandatory Requirement to Serve Request for Proceedings
To benefit from the exclusion of time under the proviso to Rule 81(1), an intended appellant must make a written request for a copy of the proceedings within thirty days of the decision and must send a copy of that request to the intended respondent as required by Rule 81(2); annexing the request to an affidavit filed later does not satisfy this requirement.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Registrar's Certificate — Duty on Intending Appellant
It is the bounden duty of an intending appellant to ask the registrar for a certificate of the time taken in preparing the record; the registrar is not obliged to issue such a certificate on his own volition, and the appellant must actively take the steps necessary to prosecute the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution — Substantive Justice Does Not Override Procedural Timetables
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution does not permit a party to ignore the rules of procedure; the rules that provide timetables to avoid delay reflect the caution against undue anomalies to justice, and any delay must be satisfactorily explained rather than excused merely by invoking substantive justice.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Delia Almeida v Dr Carmo Almeida (Civil Application No. 5 of 1990)
  • Man Oboic Group vs Uganda Ltd
  • Uganda Revenue Authority (supra)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Utex Industries Limited v Attorney General (Civil Application 52 of 95) [1997] UGCA 14 (5 May 1997)
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.