Wakilii

Wanume David Katamirike v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appl No. 138 of 2010)

Court of Appeal · [2011] UGCA 3 · 2011 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out an appeal for failure to file the record and memorandum of appeal within the prescribed time
Decision
Application to strike out the appeal dismissed; appeal to proceed to hearing

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 3 times 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

The Court dismissed an application to strike out an appeal for being filed out of time. It held that an intending appellant who has applied in writing for the record of proceedings and served the application on the respondent is entitled to await the Registrar's communication that the record is ready, and time runs only from that lawful notification. Service by opposing counsel of a copy of the proceedings does not displace the Registrar's statutory duty under Rule 83(2). The Registrar's certificate dated 17.06.2010 was valid despite being mis-headed and unsealed, these being mere irregularities. Time ran from 19.05.2010, so the appeal filed on 18.06.2010 was within time.

Outcome

Application to strike out the appeal dismissed; appeal to proceed to hearing

Facts

The applicant obtained judgment against Uganda Revenue Authority in a judicial review application in the High Court on 28.09.2009 for wrongful termination of his employment. The respondent filed a notice of appeal on 05.10.2009 and, on 30.09.2009, applied in writing for the record of proceedings, serving a copy on the applicant's counsel. Owing to a mis-stated case number, corrected on 12.10.2009, and delays in preparing the record, the respondent received the Registrar's communication that the proceedings were ready around 19.05.2010, collecting the full record by 04.06.2010. The Memorandum and Record of Appeal were filed on 18.06.2010 and served on 23.06.2010. The applicant contended the appeal was out of time, arguing that on 12.03.2010 he had served the respondent with certified copies of the proceedings and the Registrar's letter of 11.03.2010 showing readiness. The respondent relied on the Registrar's certificate dated 17.06.2010 certifying that time ran from 19.05.2010.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent was on 12.03.2010 served with certified copies of proceedings and judgment together with the Registrar's letter dated 11.03.2010.
  2. Whether the Registrar's certificate dated 17.06.2010 was validly issued.
  3. Whether the appeal was filed within the time prescribed by law.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010 to be cause listed for hearing at the next convenient session of hearing of Civil Appeals.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Time for Filing — Exclusion of Time under Rule 83(2) — Duty to Apply for and Await Record of Proceedings
Once an intending appellant has applied in writing for the record of proceedings from the High Court and served the application on the respondent, he is not required to do anything more until the Registrar of the High Court has finished compiling and made the record available; time for filing the appeal runs only from the Registrar's lawful notification of readiness.
Appeals — Record of Proceedings — Statutory Duty of the Registrar to Notify and Certify
The Registrar of the High Court has a statutory duty to reply in writing to an applicant informing him that the record of proceedings is ready for collection, and this duty is not discharged where opposing counsel purports to serve the intending appellant with a copy of the proceedings and a letter indicating readiness.
Appeals — Registrar's Certificate of Time — Validity Notwithstanding Irregularities
A Registrar's certificate under Rule 83(2) certifying the time taken to prepare and deliver the record of proceedings is valid despite being mis-headed 'In the Court of Appeal' rather than 'In the High Court' and lacking a seal, such matters being mere irregularities that do not affect its genuineness or validity where the certificate is signed by the appropriate Registrar and not shown to be a forgery.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.82
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.83
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.83(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.83(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.15(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.15(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.15(5)

Cases cited (3)

  • John Matsiko v Banyankole Kweterana Co. (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 43 of 1998)
  • Construction Engineers & Builders Limited v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 84 of 2001)
  • Dr. S.B. Kinyatta & Another v Suburamania Rajha Gopalan & Another (Civil Application No. 1000 of 2000)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Wanume David Katamirike Vs Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appl No. 138 of 2010) [2011] UGCA 3 (27 May 2011)
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.