[2006] UGSC 11

[2006] UGSC 11

The Supreme Court held that the proper certification required by Rule 78(2) of the Supreme Court Rules is a formal certificate from the Registrar indicating the period required for preparation and delivery of the record of proceedings. The Registrar's letter of 15th March 2005 did not constitute such certification, as the record was not actually ready for collection at that time. The record was only ready and delivered on 4th April 2005, as evidenced by the Registrar's certificate dated 6th June 2005. Therefore, the 60-day period for filing the appeal ran from 4th April 2005. Since the last day for filing (3rd June 2005) was a public holiday, the filing on 6th June 2005 was within time,...

Citation
[2006] UGSC 11
Parties
Applicant: William Kyobe; Respondent: Geofreey Gatete; Respondent: Angella Maria Nakigonya
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
3 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal Before the Supreme Court
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeal Timelines, Notice of Appeal, Certification of Proceedings, Computation of Time
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Timelines Notice of Appeal Certification of Proceedings Computation of Time

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Kyobe

Applicant

Geofreey Gatete

Respondent

Angella Maria Nakigonya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents failed to file the appeal within the prescribed 60 days after filing the notice of appeal as required by Rule 78(1) of the Supreme Court Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the Registrar's letter of 15th March 2005 constituted proper certification of readiness of the record of proceedings under Rule 78(2).
  3. 3 Whether the appeal was filed within time, considering the computation of time and public holidays.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the proper certification required by Rule 78(2) of the Supreme Court Rules is a formal certificate from the Registrar indicating the period required for preparation and delivery of the record of proceedings. The Registrar's letter of 15th March 2005 did not constitute such certification, as the record was not actually ready for collection at that time. The record was only ready and delivered on 4th April 2005, as evidenced by the Registrar's certificate dated 6th June 2005. Therefore, the 60-day period for filing the appeal ran from 4th April 2005. Since the last day for filing (3rd June 2005) was a public holiday, the filing on 6th June 2005 was within time,...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to strike out the notice of appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.