[1994] UGSC 3

[1994] UGSC 3

The Supreme Court held that Rule 39(a) of the Supreme Court Rules expressly permits informal applications for leave to appeal at the time of delivery of judgment or order, and this provision prevails over the mandatory requirement for a formal application under Order 40 rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1994] UGSC 3
Parties
Applicant: G. M. Combine (U) Limited; Respondent: A. K. Detergents (U) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Application 23 of 1994
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Leave to Appeal, Debenture Enforcement, Sale of Property Under Debenture
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Leave to Appeal Debenture Enforcement Sale of Property Under Debenture

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. M. Combine (U) Limited

Applicant

A. K. Detergents (U) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Leave to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether an informal application for leave to appeal is competent under the Civil Procedure Rules and Supreme Court Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court Judge erred in refusing the informal application for leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to rely on Rule 39(a) of the Supreme Court Rules instead of Order 40 rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that Rule 39(a) of the Supreme Court Rules expressly permits informal applications for leave to appeal at the time of delivery of judgment or order, and this provision prevails over the mandatory requirement for a formal application under Order 40 rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court found that the High Court Judge misdirected himself by refusing the informal application without considering the merits or allowing the applicant to respond to the respondent's objections. The Court reaffirmed the principle established in Sango Bay Ltd v. Dresdner Bank (1971) E.A. 17, that the choice of procedure—formal or informal—rests with the party seeking leave to...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

Orders

  • The preliminary point raised by the respondent is dismissed.
  • The matter shall proceed to hearing on the merits.