[1998] UGCA 23

[1998] UGCA 23

The court found that the respondents failed to serve the applicant with a copy of the letter requesting for the record of proceedings as required by Rule 82(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1996. There was no sufficient proof of service, such as an endorsed and stamped copy of the letter or a statement in the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] UGCA 23
Parties
Applicant: Reamaton Ltd; Respondent: Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd; Respondent: Henry Kawalya
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Application No. 53 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed; notice of appeal struck out
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Service of Documents, Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Notice of Appeal Service of Documents Extension of Time Appeal Procedure

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

Reamaton Ltd

Applicant

Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd

Respondent

Henry Kawalya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether failure to serve the applicant with a copy of the letter requesting for the record of proceedings is fatal to the intended appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the court can extend time to lodge an appeal when considering an application to strike out a notice of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to serve the applicant with a copy of the letter requesting for the record of proceedings as required by Rule 82(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1996. There was no sufficient proof of service, such as an endorsed and stamped copy of the letter or a statement in the affidavit of service indicating refusal to accept service. The affidavit relied on by the respondents did not explain the absence of such proof. Consequently, the respondents could not rely on Rule 82(2) to extend the time for filing the appeal. Furthermore, the court held that Rule 52(2)(c) expressly excludes applications to strike out a notice of appeal from those where the court...

Court Disposition

application allowed; notice of appeal struck out

Orders

  • The notice of appeal is struck out.
  • The respondents shall pay the applicant the costs of this application.