[1987] UGSC 1

[1987] UGSC 1

The Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the notice of appeal was filed out of time, and no leave for extension was granted. Additionally, the appellant failed to extract and file both the order appealed against and the order granting leave to appeal, as required by the Rules. The omission of Exhibit...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1987] UGSC 1
Parties
Appellant: Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd; Respondent: Eddy Rodrigues
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
appeal struck out as incompetent
Judges
Lubogo, JSC, Saied, CJ, Nyamuchoncho, JSC
Legal Topics
Appeal Timeliness, Supplementary Record of Appeal, Banking Liability, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Appeal Timeliness Supplementary Record of Appeal Banking Liability Procedural Compliance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd

Appellant

Eddy Rodrigues

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time period under the Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the omission of basic documents from the record of appeal could be cured by filing a supplementary record.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal was competent in the absence of extracted orders and leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the notice of appeal was filed out of time, and no leave for extension was granted. Additionally, the appellant failed to extract and file both the order appealed against and the order granting leave to appeal, as required by the Rules. The omission of Exhibit D.1 from the record could not be cured by simply tendering it at the appellate stage; the proper procedure was to file a supplementary record in compliance with Rule 89. The Court reaffirmed that appeals must strictly comply with procedural requirements, and defects relating to basic documents cannot be waived or remedied except by extension of time granted by the Court....

Court Disposition

appeal struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out with costs to the respondent.