[1991] UGSC 14

[1991] UGSC 14

The Supreme Court found that the respondent failed to institute the appeal within the prescribed time and did not comply with the procedural requirements for requesting a copy of proceedings, as there was insufficient evidence that a copy of the request was sent to the applicants or their counsel. The court also found the respondent's explanations for the delay unconvincing, noting that the respondent did not apply for an extension of time and appeared to be employing delaying tactics. The court held that the respondent could not benefit from the proviso to Rule 81 and that the notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to take essential steps within the required timeframe. The...

Citation
[1991] UGSC 14
Parties
Applicant: Abubakari Kato Kasule; Applicant: Safuya Babirye Kasule; Respondent: Tomson Muhwezi
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
18 April 1991
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal Before Supreme Court
Outcome
Application allowed. Notice of appeal struck out with costs to the applicants.
Legal Topics
Appeal Timelines, Striking Out Notice of Appeal, Lease Termination, Re Entry Procedure
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Appeal Timelines Striking Out Notice of Appeal Lease Termination Re Entry Procedure

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abubakari Kato Kasule

Applicant

Safuya Babirye Kasule

Applicant

Tomson Muhwezi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal Before Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent instituted the appeal within the prescribed time as required by the Rules of the Supreme Court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with the procedural requirements for requesting court proceedings to benefit from the extension of time under the rules.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's delay in instituting the appeal was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the respondent failed to institute the appeal within the prescribed time and did not comply with the procedural requirements for requesting a copy of proceedings, as there was insufficient evidence that a copy of the request was sent to the applicants or their counsel. The court also found the respondent's explanations for the delay unconvincing, noting that the respondent did not apply for an extension of time and appeared to be employing delaying tactics. The court held that the respondent could not benefit from the proviso to Rule 81 and that the notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to take essential steps within the required timeframe. The...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Notice of appeal struck out with costs to the applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent's notice of appeal is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the applicants.