William Giboni Wanendeya v Erias Lukwago (Civil Application No. 63 of 2005)

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 of Appeal held that under rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules an appeal must be instituted within sixty days of lodging the Notice of Appeal. The respondent was supplied certified copies of the proceedings and ruling on 21 April 2005 but failed to institute an appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the application to strike out the Notice of Appeal filed on 29 March 2005 had merit, and the notice was struck out with costs to the applicant.

Outcome

Notice of Appeal struck out with costs to the applicant

Facts

In Miscellaneous Application No. 108 of 2004, a ruling was delivered on 16 March 2005 dismissing the application on the ground that the applicant had not been personally served nor through an advocate with instructions. The respondent filed a Notice of Appeal in the High Court on 29 March 2005, accompanied by a letter requesting certified copies of the proceedings and ruling to enable filing of the record of appeal. The respondent was supplied those documents on 21 April 2005. As the ruling was not appealable as of right, the respondent sought leave of court in Miscellaneous Application No. 349 of 2005, which was dismissed on 12 October 2005. On 25 October 2005 the respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No. 100 of 2005 for leave to appeal and extension of time, but only after the applicant had filed the present application to strike out the Notice of Appeal. The applicant contended that no appeal had been instituted within sixty days of receipt of the proceedings.

Issues

1. Whether the Notice of Appeal should be struck out on the ground that no appeal was instituted within the prescribed period of sixty days.
2. Whether it was just and equitable to strike out the Notice of Appeal.

Orders

• The Notice of Appeal filed on 29 March 2005 is struck out with costs to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.81
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.82
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.83
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 rr.1, 2, 3 and 4

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

• Ssali and 4 Others v Kagara and 4 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application 17 of 2024)
• Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein & Ors [2008] UGSC 17
• Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin and Others (Civil Application 19 of 2008)
• Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin and Others (Civil Application 19 of 2008)

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