[2004] UGCA 31
The court found that the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory timelines for filing the notice of appeal and serving the record of appeal as stipulated by the Court of Appeal Rules. The delay was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. While Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution allows courts to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] UGCA 31
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Bakamwoga; Respondent: Fabiano Kencurtkoi; Respondent: Stephen Beshetsya
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 32 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Outcome
- appeal struck out as incompetent
- Judges
- Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, Kitumba, JA, Byamugisha, JA
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Timelines, Notice of Appeal, Extension of Time, Procedural Incompetence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Joseph Bakamwoga
Appellant
Fabiano Kencurtkoi
Respondent
Stephen Beshetsya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the notice of appeal and the appeal were filed within the prescribed time limits under the Rules of Court.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing and serving the appeal can be excused under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
- 3 Whether the appeal should be struck out as incompetent due to procedural non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory timelines for filing the notice of appeal and serving the record of appeal as stipulated by the Court of Appeal Rules. The delay was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. While Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution allows courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, this does not permit disregard of clear procedural requirements. The court upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the appeal as incompetent, awarding costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
appeal struck out as incompetent
Orders
- The appeal is struck out for being incompetent.
- Costs are awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
### TN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
## CORAM: HON. JUSTICE L. E. M. MUI{ASA-KIKONYOGO, DCJ HON. JUSTICE C. N. B. KITUMBA, JA HON. JUSTTCE C. K. BYAMUGTSHA, JA
### CIVIL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2OO3
a
t
#### JOSEPH BAKAMWOGA APPELLANT VERSUS 1 FABIANO KENCURTKOI RESPONDENT
2 STEPHEN BESHETSYA]
20 (Arising from High Coutt Misc, Civtl Application No. 739 oJ 1993)
#### RULING OF THE COURT
When the appeal carne up for hearing Mr. Eric Muhwezi, learned counsel, for the respondents raised a preliminary objection.
He contended that the notice of appeal and the appeal were incompetent. Counsel submitted that the notice of appeal was 30 filed on 28th September 2OO1 against a decision of the court which was given on 2nd May 1994. This was more than seven
years out of time without leave of court to extend time within which to file the notice of appeal. This was outside the prescribed time under Rule 75 (2) of the Rules of this court.
Counsel further submitted that the record of appeal was hled 10 on 2nd April 20O3 and served on the respondents' counsel on 13th July 2004. This was approximately one year and three months instead of seven days provided by Rule 87 (1). Counsel prayed court to strike out the notice of appeal and the appeal under Rule 81 of the Rules of this court as being incompetent.
Mr. Mark Bwengre, learned counsel for the appellant appreciated the procedural points raised by counsel for the respondents. He, however, submitted that the points raised 20 by counsel were merely procedural in nature and not substantive law. He relied on Article 126 l2l (e) of the Constitution. He prayed court to excuse the delay and to hear the appeal on merit.
We agree with Mr. Muhwezi's submission that there was inordinate delay in taking essential steps to lile and prosecute the appeai. In the case of Utex Industries Ltd Vs Attorney General. S. C Civil Application No. 52 of 1995. The Supreme Court said that "in order to qaoid delags ntles of court 30 provtde a timetable uithin which certain steps ought to
# tqken. For ang delag to be excused it must be explained satisfoctorilg".
In the matter now before us the failure to take essential steps was not satisfactorily explained. In the premises we uphold 10 the objections and strike out the appeal for being incompetent,
with costs to the respondents.
Dated at Kampala this 29th day of July 2004.
L. E. M. Mukasa-Kikonyogo Hon. Deputy Chief Justice
20 C. N. B. Kitumba, Hon. Justice ofAppeal
> C. K. Byamugisha Hon. Justice ofAppeal