[1993] UGHCCRD 5
The court found that the notice of appeal was received by the Registry on 13/10/92 and the fees paid on 14/10/92, both within the statutory 14-day period following sentencing on 7/10/92. The date indicated by the District Registrar in her certificate (10/3/93) was deemed to be the date of administrative...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1993] UGHCCRD 5
- Parties
- Appellant: Selimu Kaladini; Respondent: Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1992
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection rejected
- Judges
- Kato, J
- Legal Topics
- Notice of Appeal, Filing Deadlines, Preliminary Objection, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Selimu Kaladini
Appellant
Uganda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the notice of appeal was filed within the statutory period as required by law.
- 2 Whether the date certified by the District Registrar determines the effective filing date of the notice of appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the notice of appeal was received by the Registry on 13/10/92 and the fees paid on 14/10/92, both within the statutory 14-day period following sentencing on 7/10/92. The date indicated by the District Registrar in her certificate (10/3/93) was deemed to be the date of administrative acknowledgment, not the actual filing date. The court held that the effective filing date is when the notice is presented and fees paid, not when the Registrar signs the certificate. Therefore, the preliminary objection was rejected and the notice of appeal deemed filed in time.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection rejected
Orders
- The preliminary objection is rejected.
- The notice of appeal is deemed filed in time.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
Hon. Justice Isekoho. THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT JINJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.13 OF 1992 FROM CRIMINAL CASE NO. MJ.922/92(JINJA) SELIMU KALADINI ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: VERSUS UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::RECFONDENT
**BLFORE:** HON. MR. JUSTICE C. M. KATO
## R U L I N G
This ruling refers to a preliminary objection raised by Mr. Wamasebu the learned counsel for the respondent. The substance of the objection is that the notice of appeal was filed out of time since the accused/appellant was sentenced on 7/10/92 and the District Registrar certified the notice as having been received on $10/3/93$ which was out of time.
I have carefuly looked at the record and all the documents available clearly show that the notice of appeal was in fact lodged at the District Registry on 14/10/92 that being the date on which the fees were paid although the notice was in fact received on 13/10/92. Both the receipt of the fees on 14/10/92 and that of the notice of appeal on $13/10/92$ were in time. It is true the District Registrar in her certificate shows that the notice was received on 10/3/93 the only explanation that can be given is that the learned District Registrar must have indicated the date on which she signed the receipt of the notice not the date on which it was filed in her Registry, that is quite understandable because the District Registrar is a very busy person and at times documents which should be signed promptly are signed later on. In my opinion a notice of . appeal is filed when it is presented to the criminal Registry with the payment of the necessary fees.
$\frac{1}{2}$
In this case the votice was received on 13/10/92 only 6 days after the sentence was passed and the fees were paid on 14/10/92 only 7 days from the day of the passing of the sentence. Both of these acts were performed well within 14 days which is the statutory period required.
$\mathsf{Z}$
The effective date here is $14/10/92$ when the fees were paid but not 10/3/93 when the District Registrar administratively acknowledged the filing of the notice of appeal.
The position being what it is the preliminary objection is rejected as the notice of appeal was filed in time.
> C. M. KATO JUDGE $15/3/93$
$15/3/93$ - Later at 10.50 A. M. Court: - The court is as before. Ruling is delivered.