Wanyaka v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2020)
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 IGG, dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's acquittal of the applicant, filed a notice of appeal in November 2019 but, nearly two years later, had never lodged a memorandum of appeal nor sought an extension of time. The Supreme Court held that a notice of appeal merely commences the appeal process and cannot substitute for a memorandum of appeal, which has distinct contents under rule 62. The respondent's mere assertion that it had not been served with the record, without evidence of any active steps to obtain it, amounted to dilatory conduct and breached rule 58(2). The Court resolved both issues against the respondent, granted the application and struck out the notice of appeal.
Outcome
Application granted; the respondent's notice of appeal struck out for failure to file a memorandum of appeal and to prosecute the intended appeal
Facts
The applicant was convicted by the High Court of embezzlement, abuse of office and false accounting under the Anti-Corruption Act, ordered to refund shs. 822,965,000 to the government and barred from public office for ten years. On appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and set aside the sentences on 31 October 2019. Dissatisfied, the Inspectorate of Government (IGG) filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court on 13 November 2019, requesting a typed record of proceedings to formulate grounds of appeal. The notice was registered as Supreme Court Appeal No. 9 of 2019. Nearly two years later the IGG had never lodged a memorandum of appeal, applied for an extension of time, or served the notice on the applicant. The applicant applied to strike out the notice of appeal, contending the respondent had filed no appeal and taken no further steps to pursue it. The respondent's affidavit in reply asserted that time to file a memorandum runs only after service of the record, but adduced no evidence of steps taken to obtain that record.
Issues
- Whether the respondent filed a memorandum of appeal in the Supreme Court following its notice of appeal.
- Whether the respondent failed to take active steps to pursue the intended appeal.
Orders
- Application granted.
- Notice of appeal struck out.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (13)
- Judicature Act s.16
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules SI 13-11 rule 2(2)
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules rule 5
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules rule 58(2)
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules rule 61(1)
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules rule 62(1)
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules rule 62(2)
- Criminal Procedure Act Cap 116 s.28(1)
- Criminal Procedure Act Cap 116 s.28(2)(b),(3),(4)
- Criminal Procedure Act Cap 116 s.44
- Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.11(1) & (2)
- Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.19
- Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.22
Cases cited (3)
- Uganda v Ntambi Vincent (Criminal Application No. 08 of 2019)
- Kasibante Moses v Electoral Commission (Electoral Petition Appeal No. 7 of 2012)
- Nalukenge v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2008)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.