[2004] UGHC 76

[2004] UGHC 76

The court found that the memorandum of appeal was defective as it did not set out the grounds of objection concisely and under distinct heads as required by Order 39 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The appellant attempted to argue grounds not apparent in the memorandum without seeking leave of court, contrary to Order 39 rule 2. The court relied on the precedent in Moro Okolla vs John Lalobo [1979] HCB 54, which held that a memorandum of appeal not complying with the rules is incurably defective and must be rejected. Consequently, the appeal was struck out with costs.

Citation
[2004] UGHC 76
Parties
Appellant: Isharaza Mathew; Respondent: Beyunga Deusdedit
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
7 October 2004
Case Number
HCT-05-CV-CA-005-2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_struck_out
Legal Topics
Memorandum of Appeal Requirements, Grounds of Appeal, Leave of Court, Striking Out Defective Pleadings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Memorandum of Appeal Requirements Grounds of Appeal Leave of Court Striking Out Defective Pleadings

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isharaza Mathew

Appellant

Beyunga Deusdedit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the memorandum of appeal complied with Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant could argue grounds not set out in the memorandum of appeal without leave of court.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal should be struck out for incurable defect in the memorandum of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the memorandum of appeal was defective as it did not set out the grounds of objection concisely and under distinct heads as required by Order 39 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The appellant attempted to argue grounds not apparent in the memorandum without seeking leave of court, contrary to Order 39 rule 2. The court relied on the precedent in Moro Okolla vs John Lalobo [1979] HCB 54, which held that a memorandum of appeal not complying with the rules is incurably defective and must be rejected. Consequently, the appeal was struck out with costs.

Court Disposition

appeal_struck_out

Orders

  • The memorandum of appeal is struck out as incurably defective.
  • The appellant shall pay costs to the respondent.