[1987] UGSC 2

[1987] UGSC 2

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was incompetent because the notice of appeal was filed 15 days out of time and the record of appeal was filed 149 days late, both in contravention of the mandatory time limits set by the Court of Appeal Rules. No extension or certificate of delay was obtained. Furthermore,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1987] UGSC 2
Parties
Appellant: George Lubega and Others; Respondent: Uganda Transport Co. (1975) Ltd and Another
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
2 July 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Decree
Outcome
appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent
Judges
Lubogo, JSC, Saied, CJ, Nyamuchoncho, JSC
Legal Topics
Appeal Out of Time, Quantum of Damages, Professional Conduct of Advocates, Motor Accident Liability
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Tort Law Appeal Out of Time Quantum of Damages Professional Conduct of Advocates Motor Accident Liability

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Lubega and Others

Appellant

Uganda Transport Co. (1975) Ltd and Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice of appeal and record of appeal were filed within the prescribed time limits under the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal was competent given that the decretal amount and costs had already been paid to the appellant's counsel.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's counsel had instructions to file the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was incompetent because the notice of appeal was filed 15 days out of time and the record of appeal was filed 149 days late, both in contravention of the mandatory time limits set by the Court of Appeal Rules. No extension or certificate of delay was obtained. Furthermore, the appellant's counsel had already received payment of the decretal sum and costs from the respondent, indicating satisfaction of the judgment and extinguishing the right to appeal. The court found that the appellant's counsel had no instructions to file the appeal and that the conduct of briefing or representing parties in contentious matters without proper authority or in...

Court Disposition

appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The notice of appeal is struck out as incompetent.
  • The appeal is struck out with costs to the respondent.