Waiswa & 2 Ors v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 0022 of 2017)

Observed later treatment

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 considered an application to reinstate a criminal appeal dismissed for the applicants' non-appearance. Under rule 73(7) of the Court of Appeal Rules, a dismissed appeal may be restored where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. Adopting the definition of sufficient cause in Nicholas Roussos, the Court found that the unrepresented applicants' ignorance of the requirement to provide a precise address, which caused their failure to be served with the hearing notice, amounted to sufficient cause. The Court held it was not concerned with the merits of the appeal. The application was allowed and the appeal reinstated, with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application allowed; Criminal Appeal No. 0817 of 2014 reinstated for hearing on its merits

Facts

The three applicants were convicted by the Chief Magistrate's Court of forcible entry contrary to section 77 of the Penal Code Act. On appeal, the High Court quashed that conviction, substituted a conviction for criminal trespass contrary to section 302, and imposed sentences which the applicants have since served. The applicants lodged a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal, giving their address as "Nawansega Village, Namungalwe subcounty, Kigulu County, Iganga District", an imprecise address. Their appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 0817 of 2014, came up for hearing and was dismissed for their non-appearance. The applicants, who were unrepresented when filing the notice of appeal, were not served with the hearing notice because the imprecise address made it difficult for court process servers to locate them. They subsequently filed this application to reinstate the dismissed appeal, together with a memorandum of appeal and record of proceedings.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants demonstrated sufficient cause under rule 73(7) to justify reinstatement of their criminal appeal that was dismissed for non-appearance.

Orders

• Criminal Appeal No. 0817 of 2014 reinstated and to be heard on its merits.
• Applicants to take steps to file all documents relevant to the prosecution of their appeal within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
• Application allowed with no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 rule 73(7)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 rule 73(6)
• Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.77
• Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.302

Cases cited (5)

• Nicholas Roussos v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
• Shabin Din v. Ram Parkash Anand (1955) 22 EACA 48
• Zirabamuzaale v. Correct (1962) E.A. 694
• Patel v. Star Mineral Water and Ice Factory (1961) E.A. 454
• Mitha v. Ladak (1960) E.A. 1054

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.

• Waiswa Jamada & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 0022 of 2019)

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