[1998] UGCA 5

[1998] UGCA 5

The Court held that under the current Court of Appeal Rules, 1996, the extraction of a formal decree is no longer a legal requirement for instituting an appeal. The appeal is against the judgment or reasoned order, not the decree. The only circumstance where a decree is required in the record is if its date or terms...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] UGCA 5
Parties
Appellant: Kibuuka Musoke William; Appellant: S. Muwemba; Respondent: Dr. Apollo Kaggwa
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Appeal No 46 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeal Requirements, Record of Appeal, Decree Vs Judgment, Court of Appeal Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Requirements Record of Appeal Decree Vs Judgment Court of Appeal 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kibuuka Musoke William

Appellant

S. Muwemba

Appellant

Dr. Apollo Kaggwa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the absence of an extracted decree in the record of appeal renders the appeal incompetent under the current Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the preliminary objection raised by the respondent has merit in light of the 1996 Court of Appeal Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that under the current Court of Appeal Rules, 1996, the extraction of a formal decree is no longer a legal requirement for instituting an appeal. The appeal is against the judgment or reasoned order, not the decree. The only circumstance where a decree is required in the record is if its date or terms are disputed or form a ground of appeal, which was not the case here. The preliminary objection was therefore without merit and was rejected. The Court emphasized that technical requirements such as extraction of a decree should not bar substantive justice, in line with Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is rejected with costs in favor of the appellants.