[1991] UGHC 1

[1991] UGHC 1

The court held that the appeal was incompetent on three main grounds: (1) the appellants failed to extract and file the decree or order appealed from together with the memorandum of appeal, as required by section 232(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act and established case law; (2) the order appealed from was not one...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1991] UGHC 1
Parties
Appellant: Board of Governors; Appellant: Headmaster Gulu S. S; Respondent: Phinson E. Odong
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Appeal No. MG.2 of 1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
appeal struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Appeals Procedure, Time Limitation, Filing Requirements, Cross Appeals, Public Nuisance Actions
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeals Procedure Time Limitation Filing Requirements Cross Appeals Public Nuisance Actions

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Board of Governors

Appellant

Headmaster Gulu S. S

Appellant

Phinson E. Odong

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the appeal is incompetent for failure to extract and file the decree or order appealed from together with the memorandum of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the order appealed from is one that is automatically appealable or requires leave of court.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal is time-barred for being filed outside the statutory period without extension of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appeal was incompetent on three main grounds: (1) the appellants failed to extract and file the decree or order appealed from together with the memorandum of appeal, as required by section 232(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act and established case law; (2) the order appealed from was not one from which an appeal lies as of right under section 77(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and no leave to appeal was sought or granted; (3) the appeal was filed out of time, as the memorandum of appeal was lodged almost a year after the order appealed from, and the filing of a notice of appeal within 30 days did not save the appeal...

Court Disposition

appeal struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out as incompetent for failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements.
  • The respondent is allowed to pay the appropriate filing fee for the notice of cross-appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act.