[2001] UGHC 6

[2001] UGHC 6

The court held that the appeal was incompetent because it was filed without an extracted decree as required by law. The purported decree on record was not authentic, lacking the court seal and bearing a date inconsistent with the judgment. The Constitution did not alter the procedural requirement to file a decree...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] UGHC 6
Parties
Appellant: Artmon Sabika; Respondent: Zekereya Luganda
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_struck_out
Legal Topics
Appeal Initiation, Decree Extraction, Competency of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Initiation Decree Extraction Competency of Appeal

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Artmon Sabika

Appellant

Zekereya Luganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appeal filed without an extracted decree is competent under Ugandan law.
  2. 2 Whether the Constitution has altered the requirement to file a decree with the memorandum of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the court or the appellant is responsible for extracting the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appeal was incompetent because it was filed without an extracted decree as required by law. The purported decree on record was not authentic, lacking the court seal and bearing a date inconsistent with the judgment. The Constitution did not alter the procedural requirement to file a decree with the memorandum of appeal. The responsibility to extract and file the decree lies with the appellant, not the court. The appeal was therefore struck out with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

appeal_struck_out

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondent.