[1999] UGCA 73
The court found that the memorandum of appeal was incurably defective because it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 85(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. Specifically, it did not disclose the points of law which were wrongly decided by the trial judge, and the grounds of appeal were too vague....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] UGCA 73
- Parties
- Appellant: Lawrence Namoda; Respondent: The New Vision Printing & Publishing Corporation
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal No. 21.98
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Outcome
- appeal_struck_out
- Judges
- kato ,JA, Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Kitumba, JA
- Legal Topics
- Memorandum of Appeal Requirements, Preliminary Objection, Rule 85 Compliance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lawrence Namoda
Appellant
The New Vision Printing & Publishing Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the memorandum of appeal complied with Rule 85(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
- 2 Whether the grounds of appeal were sufficiently specific to disclose points of law wrongly decided.
- 3 Whether the prayer in the memorandum of appeal was superfluous.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the memorandum of appeal was incurably defective because it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 85(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. Specifically, it did not disclose the points of law which were wrongly decided by the trial judge, and the grounds of appeal were too vague. The court rejected the appellant's argument that such points could be disclosed during the hearing, emphasizing that procedural rules require specificity in the memorandum to inform the other side of the issues to be argued. As a result, the preliminary objection was upheld and the appeal was struck out with costs.
Court Disposition
appeal_struck_out
Orders
- The appeal is struck out with costs to the respondent here and in the court below.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
| | $\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}}$ | |--|-----------------------------| | | |
| | $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{L}}$ | | | | | |--|-----------------------------|--|--|--|--| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
## IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA
AT KAMPALA
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 21/98
CORAM: HON. MR. JUSTICE C. M. KATO, J. A. HON. LADY JUSTICE A. E. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE, J. A. HON. LADY JUSTICE C. N. B. KITUMBA, J. A.
LAWRENCE NAMODA...................................
#### VERSUS
# THE NEW VISION PRINTING & PUBLISHING CORPORATION....................................
### RULING OF THE COURT:
When this appeal came for hearing Mr. Nalyanya learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the memorandum of appeal was materially defective as it did not comply with the provisions of Rule $85(1)$ of the rules of this court in that the grounds were too vague. He argued that the first ground did not specify what points of law were wrongly decided nor did ground two say how the lower court had occasioned miscarriage of justice. He also submitted that the prayer in the memorandum of appeal was superfluous in that it was seeking for an order which had already been made by the lower court. He prayed that the appeal be struck out with costs.
On his part Mr. Musiiho for the appellant submitted that the memorandum of appeal was competent in that questions of law do not have to be stated in the memorandum of appeal, in his view, to do so would amount to being narrative.
He prayed that the objection be rejected.
Upon listening to the arguments advanced by both counsel and upon reading the memorandum of appeal and the provisions of Rule $85(1)$ of the rules of this court, we are of the view that the memorandum of appeal is incurably defective as it does not comply with the provisions of Rule $85(1)$ of the rules of this court. It does not disclose the points of law which were wrongly decided by learned trial judge. With due respect, we do not agree with Mr. Musiiho's contention that such points can only be disclosed in the course of the hearing of the appeal. The provisions of the rule are mandatory as the other side is entitled to know before hand what points are to be argued at the hearing.
In the result we uphold the objection and strike out the appeal with costs to the Respondent here and in the court below.
Dated at Kampala this $4^{th}$ day of March, 1999.
Justice of Appeal.
A. E. Mpagi-Bahigeine Justice of Appeal.
> Cres. Cilu C. N. B. Kitumba Justice of Appeal.