[1997] UGCA 11

[1997] UGCA 11

The court held that the application to strike out the appeal was fundamentally flawed because it was based on the wrong set of rules; the 1996 Supreme Court Rules were not in force at the time the appeal was filed. The correct rules were those in force at the time of filing, and any application must cite the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] UGCA 11
Parties
Appellant: James Bemba; Appellant: Andrew Bemba; Respondent: Victoria Tea Estates Limited
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Application No. 24 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Appeal Procedure, Service of Process, Address for Service, Compliance With Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Procedure Service of Process Address for Service Compliance With Rules

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Bemba

Appellant

Andrew Bemba

Appellant

Victoria Tea Estates Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the application to strike out the appeal was properly grounded on the applicable rules in force at the time of filing the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether failure by the respondent to furnish an address for service after receipt of the notice of appeal disqualifies them from complaining about late service of the memorandum and record of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application to strike out the appeal was fundamentally flawed because it was based on the wrong set of rules; the 1996 Supreme Court Rules were not in force at the time the appeal was filed. The correct rules were those in force at the time of filing, and any application must cite the relevant rules. Furthermore, the respondent failed to comply with Rule 75(1) by not furnishing an address for service after being served with the notice of appeal. This failure is fatal, as the rule is mandatory and its purpose is to ensure proper and expeditious service of documents. The respondent, having failed to comply, lost the right to complain about late service of the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to strike out the appeal is dismissed with costs.