Wakilii

Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)

Supreme Court · [1995] UGSC 38 · 1995 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application in the Supreme Court to strike out the respondent's Notice of Appeal for failure to institute the appeal within the prescribed time.
Decision
Application granted; the respondent's Notice of Appeal struck out with costs to the applicant.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 6 · applied in 1 · distinguished in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 6 cases and applied in 1 case, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 52 citing cases on record, 14 in the most recent three data years. 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

The Supreme Court held that although the Notice of Appeal had been served within time, the respondent (Attorney General) failed to institute the appeal within the sixty days prescribed by Rule 81(1) and did not comply with the proviso to Rule 81(2): an intended appellant must, within thirty days, make a written request for the proceedings and serve a copy of that request on the intended respondent. Neither Rule 4 nor Article 126(2)(e) of the 1995 Constitution could rescue a party who sat on its rights without seeking leave to extend time. The caution against undue regard to technicalities does not abolish the rules of procedure. The application was granted and the Notice of Appeal struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application granted; the respondent's Notice of Appeal struck out with costs to the applicant.

Facts

The applicant, Utex Industries Ltd, had sued the Attorney General in the High Court for damages arising from police action: police called to investigate a business dispute between the applicant's managing director and an Asian businessman handed the applicant's shop goods to the Asian. The High Court (Ntabgoba, P.J.) gave judgment for the applicant on 4 August 1995. On 18 August 1995 the Attorney General filed a Notice of Appeal in the High Court and served it on the applicant's counsel. On 5 September 1995 the respondent wrote to the Deputy Registrar requesting that the trial proceedings be typed, but did not copy that letter to the applicant. The respondent filed no memorandum or record of appeal until 3 February 1996, and then lodged them in the Court of Appeal rather than the Supreme Court. The delay was attributed partly to the respondent lacking the fees (estimated at about Shs 100,000) to prepare the record. The applicant applied to strike out the Notice of Appeal for the respondent's failure to take the steps prescribed within time.

Issues

  1. Whether the Notice of Appeal was served on the applicant within the time prescribed by Rule 75.
  2. Whether the respondent instituted the appeal within the sixty days prescribed by Rule 81(1), including whether the written request for the proceedings was made within thirty days and a copy served on the intended respondent under Rule 81(2).
  3. Whether Rule 4 or Article 126(2)(e) of the 1995 Constitution could excuse the respondent's failure to comply with the time requirements.

Orders

  • Notice of Appeal struck out with costs to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Institution of appeal — Time limits (Rule 81(1))
An appeal is instituted only by lodging the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal in the appropriate registry within sixty days of the date on which the Notice of Appeal was lodged.
Appeals — Proviso to Rule 81 — Written request for proceedings
An intended appellant who wishes to rely on the proviso excluding time taken to prepare the record must, within thirty days of the decision appealed against, make a written request to the registrar for a copy of the proceedings and serve a copy of that request on the intended respondent; the request must show on its face that it was copied to the respondent.
Appeals — Duty of intending appellant
It is the duty of an intending appellant, not the registrar acting of his own volition, to request the certificate of the time taken in preparing the record and to take the active steps necessary to prosecute the appeal.
Article 126(2)(e) — Technicalities and rules of procedure
Article 126(2)(e) of the 1995 Constitution is a caution against undue regard to technicalities but does not abolish the rules of procedure; rules of court remain handmaids of justice to be applied with due regard to the circumstances of each case, and cannot assist a party who sat on its rights without seeking leave to extend time.
Extension of time — Rule 4
Rule 4 cannot save a defaulting party who has not applied for leave to extend the time within which the required steps ought to have been taken.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (4)

  • Dejia Almeida v Dr Carmo Rui Almeida (Civil Application No. 6 of 1990)
  • Stephen Mabosi vs [illegible] (supra)
  • H.G. Gandesha / Kampala Estates [illegible] (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. [illegible])
  • [illegible] Kanobo (unreported)

Cases citing this judgment (30)

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 Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 52 of 1995) [1995] UGSC 38 (4 August 1995)
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.