Wakilii

Velji v Takim and Company (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1952)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 53 · 1955 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file security bond out of time in respect of appeal to Privy Council from Court of Appeal decision
Decision
Final leave to appeal to Privy Council granted with late acceptance of security

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 section 5(a) of the East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council, 1951 is directory rather than mandatory. The 90-day time limit for furnishing security is not intended in a rigorous or exact sense and can be extended for cogent reason. Where the appellant had arranged for security to be lodged within time but the surety fell ill, and cash security was deposited within four days thereafter, the Court exercised its discretion to accept the late security and grant final leave to appeal.

Outcome

Final leave to appeal to Privy Council granted with late acceptance of security

Facts

The appellant obtained a conditional order from the Court of Appeal on 23 May 1953 for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, with a condition to furnish security of £400 within three months. The appellant arranged for a surety of unquestionable means to sign a surety bond before the Deputy Registrar on 22 August 1953, the last day of the permitted period. However, the intended surety was ill and unable to attend on that day. On 28 August 1953, six days after the deadline, the appellant deposited £400 in cash with the Court. The appellant then applied for leave to file the security bond out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal has discretion to allow an appeal to the Privy Council to proceed where the appellant failed to furnish security within the time fixed by a conditional order for leave to appeal.
  2. Whether the time limit provisions in section 5(a) of the East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council, 1951 are mandatory or directory.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Final leave to appeal to Privy Council granted.
  • Sum of £400 accepted as security for due prosecution of appeal.
  • Record to be dispatched within 30 days.
  • Appellant to pay costs of the application in any event.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals to Privy Council — Time Limits for Security — Mandatory versus Directory Provisions
Provisions in an Order in Council requiring security for an appeal to be furnished within a specified time limit are directory rather than mandatory where subsequent related provisions indicate that the court retains discretion to regulate the appeal process and ensure justice.
Civil Procedure — Appeals to Privy Council — Extension of Time — Exercise of Discretion
A court has discretion to extend the time for furnishing security for an appeal to the Privy Council beyond the period fixed in a conditional order where there is good and reasonable cause for the failure to comply, such as illness of an intended surety on the last day, and where the appellant acts promptly to remedy the default.
Administrative Law — Statutory Interpretation — Directory versus Mandatory Provisions
In determining whether a statutory time limit is mandatory or directory, the court should examine the entire statutory scheme, including subsequent related provisions that confer discretion on the court or provide for modification of requirements, and should consider whether the provision contains an express sanction for non-compliance.

Legislation cited (9)

  • East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council, 1951 s.5(a)
  • East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council, 1951 s.8
  • East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council, 1951 s.11
  • East African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council, 1951 s.5(b)
  • Indian Act X of 1877 s.602
  • Indian Act VI of 1874 s.11
  • Indian Code of Civil Procedure s.603
  • Indian Code of Civil Procedure s.604
  • Indian Code of Civil Procedure s.605

Cases cited (7)

  • Retemeyer v Obermuller (2 Moore P.C.C. 93)
  • Pearson v Russell (15 Victoria L.R. 89)
  • Chan Wo v Chan Tam (3 Hong Kong L.R. 179)
  • Burjore and Bhawani Pershad v Bhagana (11 I.A. 7)
  • In re Soorjmukhi Koer (2 I.L.R. (Calcutta) 272)
  • Fazal-un-Nissa Begum v Mulo (6 I.L.R. (Allahabad) 250)
  • Sheikh Fatal Ellahi v Ebrahimji Gulamhussein Anjarwala (17 E.A.C.A. 45)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Velji v Takim and Company (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1952) [1955] EACA 53 (1 January 1955)
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.