[2023] UGSC 22

#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA.

## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

## (CORAM: TIBATEMWA – EKIRIKUBINZA, TUHAISE & MADRAMA, JJSC)

## CIVIL REFERENCE NO 04 OF 2023

HERMAN SSEMAKULA} ....................................

### **VERSUS**

<table>

IVAN ASIIMWE} RESPONDENT

(Reference of the Ruling of Hon. Justice Mike Chibita JSC dated 14^th April 2023 in Miscellaneous Applications Nos 16 & 18 of 2022)

## **RULING OF COURT**

- The appellant made this reference from the decision of Hon Justice Mike 15 Chibita (JSC), sitting as a single Justice in consolidated Applications Nos 16 and 18 of 2022 wherein the learned single Justice of the Supreme Court in Civil Application No 16 of 2022 brought by the respondent, Mr. Ivan Asiimwe struck out the appellant's appeal and dismissed the appellant's application - in Civil Application No 18 of 2022 for extension of time to validate the 20 Memorandum and Record of Appeal which had been filed on Court record.

The grounds of the reference are that:

- $1.$ The learned Justice of Appeal erred in law and fact when he failed to consider exceptional and justifiable reasons as to why the appellant/applicant was unable to file this appeal in time. - $2.$ The learned Justice of Appeal erred in law when he failed to discount the December and January Christmas/court vacation days when computing the days within which the appeal had to be argued. - 3. The learned Justice of Appeal erred in law and fact when he failed to evaluate and consider the evidence presented by the appellant in

$\mathsf{S}$

- ⁵ Miscetlaneous Apptication Nos 16 & 18 ot 2022 teading to the dismissal. of the apptication and striking (out) the undertying appeat. - The learned Justice of Appeat erred in [aw and fact when he struck out the appeal without statutory jurisdiction to do so. 11

10 At the hearing of the appea[, learned counsel Mr. David Ssempal.a appeared for the applicant white learned counsel Mr. Obed Mwebesa assisted by learned counsel Mr. Godfrey Akakimpa appeared for the respondent. The Appticant was in court.

15 Both counset retied on written submissions on record. They addressed court oratty on the additionaL ground of reference by way of amendment which raises a point of law as to the Jurisdiction of a SingLe Justice of the Supreme Court to strike out the appettant's appeat as he did in Civit Appl.ication No. 16 of 2022 and on the other grounds generatty.

#### Ground 4:

#### 20

## The learned Justice of Appeat erred in law and fact when he struck out the appeat without statutory jurisdiction to do so

0n ground 4 of the reference, Mr. Ssempala retied on section 8 of the Judicature Act and submitted that a singLe Justice may exercrse a[[ powers of the Supreme Court onty in an intertocutory matter but that striking out the appeal was not an intertocutory order to the appeaL but disposed of the appeat itsetf. ln the premises, he argued that the singl.e Justice of the Court had no jurisdiction to hear Mrscettaneous Apptication No. 16 of 2022. He submitted that the judgment of a court without jurisdiction is a nuttity and retied on Makula lnternational Vs Cardinat Emmanuel Nsubuga n982] HCB ¹¹and Prof Syed Huq vs lstamic University in Kampal.a (Supreme Court Civil.

30 Appeat No. 47 of 1995) [1997] UGSC 3 for the proposition that no court should condone an ittegatity once brought to the attention of the court.

Secondty Mr. Ssempal.a argued that under rute 110 (2) of the Rutes of this Court, the court ought to have defrned what is meant by Chrrstmas vacation under ru[e 4 (e) of the Rutes because it is not defined under the Rutes. This

- 5 10 is because ruLe 4 (e) exctudes the Christmas vacation in computation of time in that it provrdes that Christmas vacation shal.l not be taken into account. However, the term "Christmas vacation" is not defined. Mr. Ssempata submitted that in the circumstances, recourse shoutd be had to rute ll0 (2) of the Rutes of the Supreme Court which provides that in case of any diff icutty or doubt a judge or registrar may rnformatty give direction as to the procedure to be adopted or superimpose rutes appl.icabte before - 15 the coming into force of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rul.es) Directions. ln the premises, he contended that the learned Singte Justice ought to have retied on the meaning of Christmas vacation under 0rder 51 rule 4 of the CiviI Procedure Rutes which defines it as the period between the 24th of December and l5th of January. Had he done so, the appeat woutd be considered as having been fited within 60 days.

Lastty Mr Ssempata submitted the it is Order 5l rute 4 of the CPR which appties and not the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rutes under which the business of the court sti[[ continues untike in the Christmas vacation.

ln repty Mr. Mwebesa submitted that the learned singte Justice was deating with an appl.ication for extension of time. ln that application, the affidavit in support of the apptication is that of Mr. Jacob Kataabi, an Advocate practicing with KSMO Advocates who deponed to an affidavit in which he stated in paragraph 11 thereof that they had been avaited the record of proceedings on the 21't of December 2021 whereas not. The record was certif ied as having been received on the 2nd of December 2021. He submitted that the respondent filed the appl.ication to strike out the appeat of the appel.tant who betatedty reatised that the appeaI was out of time and fil.ed

Civil. Apptication No 18 of 2022 for extension of time to vaLidate their appeat. He contended that the appl.icant thereby conceded that their appeal had been f iLed out of time 30

With regard to the definition of "Christmas vacation" under rul.e 4 (e) of the Rutes of this Court, Mr. Mwebesa submitted that the def inition of Christmas vacation under 0rder 5l ru[e 4 of the CiviI Procedure Rutes was wrong because those rules do not appty to the Supreme Court. He argued that the

⁵ appticabl.e rutes were those under the Judicature (Court Vacation) RuLes which defines Christmas vacation as the period between 23.d December and 7th of January with both days inctusive. Further the appel.l.ant received proceedings for purposes of the appeal on the 2nd of December 2021. Mr. Mwebesa on a question put to him by court conceded that if the days specified in the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rutes are exctuded from the days within which the appeal shoutd be fited and the appeal. is found to have been Lodged within 60 days, he woutd concede to the reference. 10

15 ln rejoinder Mr. Ssempata submitted that the appticant rn Civit Apptication No. i8 of 2022 filed an affidavit in rejoinder where Mr. Kataabi stated that the affidavit he had previousty fil.ed in support of the appl.ication had an error. He deponed that the record of proceedings was received on beha[f of the appeLLant on the 2nd of December2021 and not on the 2'l't of December as eartier deposed to. Mr. Ssempa[a submitted that the appeal had been todged in time. The Court reserved ruting on notice.

# 20 Consideration of the Reference:

The facts on which this reference is based are not in dispute. The respondent to the reference Mr lvan Asiimwe fited Civit Apptication No 016 of 2022 to strike out the appeaI of the appettant/appl.icant to this reference on the ground that it was fil.ed outside the time Limit for the fiting of appeaLs.

- 25 0n the other hand, the appettant/appticant to this reference fil.ed another apptication to validate the appeaI by extension of time and the apptication was cited as Civit Apptication No 0018 of 2022. The facts which are not in dispute are that the record of proceedings which had been requested for by the appettant were avaited to the appettant's counsel on 2nd December 2021 - ³⁰ and subsequentty the appeal. was Lodged in this court on 15th February 2022.

The matter was heard by a singte Justice under section 8 of the Judicature Act cap 13 Laws of Uganda. The learned singte Justice of this court consolidated the two apptrcations but decided to consider Civit Apptication No 18 of 2022, which was an apptication for extensron of time to fite the memorandum of appeaI outside the time prescribed by the rules and to

⁵ vatidate the memorandum and record of appeaI which had been fited on the court record on 15th February 2022firsl. The judge found that the record of proceedings was received on 2nd December 2021 and the appeal. was f il.ed on 15th February 2022. ln the premises, he found that the appticant's lawyers disptayed a hrgh degree of stoppiness and were guitty of laches in prosecuting the appeat. Further to the point, he he[d that the Christmas hotiday cannot and shoutd not be used as the reason for faiture to meet statutory deadtines save for the two designated days as pubtic hotidays during that season. 10

The two designated hotidays are the 25th and 26th of December. This should be taken to rnctude 1't January. ln other words, the singte Justice of this court coutd only have exctuded three days in reckoning the 60 days within which the appetLant's appeal. ought to have been todged in the Supreme Court. ln the premises, he agreed with the respondent's counsel that the appeat was f ited out of time and no sufficient cause had been disctosed to 15

- warrant the grant of an order extending time within which to fite the appeat. ln the premises, the singte Justice of this court dismissed Supreme Court Civit Apptication No 0018 of 2022 wilh costs to the respondent and attowed Supreme Court Civil Apptication No 016 of 2002 with costs. Accordingty, he struck out the appettant's appeal. in Civit Appeat No 003 of 2022. ,n - We have carefutty considered the reference and particuLarl.y ground 4 thereof in which it is argued that a singte Justice of the court does not have powers to strike out an appea[ and therefore the appetl.ant objected to the decision on the ground of want of jurisdiction. 25

The Jurisdiction of a singte Justice of the Supreme Court is founded only on section 8 of the Judicature Act cap '13 laws of Uganda which provides that:

8. Powers of a single Justice of the Supreme Court.

(1) A single Justice of the Supreme Court may exercise any power vested in the Supreme Court in any interlocutory cause or matter before the Supreme Court.

(2) Any person dissatisfied with the decision of a singLe Justice in the exercise of a power under subsection (1) is entitted to have the matter determined by a bench

⁵ of three justices of the Supreme Court which may confirm, vary or reverse the decrsion

We have carefutty considered section 8 (1) and its wording is very clear in that it provides that "a singte Justice of the Supreme Court may exercise any power vested in the Supreme Court in any intedocutory cause or matter before the Supreme Court". Onl.y when there is an appeal before the Supreme Court coutd there be any intertocutory application, pending the determination of the appeal and such interlocutory application can be heard

and determined by a singte Justice of the court. We accept the submissions of the appetlant's counset that the words "interlocutory apptication" mean an appl.ication that is made and is seeking an order that is issued in the interim pending the hearing and determination of the appea[. 15

We note that Rute 50 (2) (b) of the Rutes of this Court prohibits a singl.e Justice of the court from hearing an appl.ication for a stay of execution, injunction or stay of proceedings. However, section 8 of the Judicature Act

20 (supra) empowers a singte judge of this Court to exercise any power vested in the Supreme Court in rntertocutory appIications. An Act of Par[iament overrides any subsidiary Legistation in conftict with it and since Rul'e 50 (2) is in conftict with a provision of an Act of ParLiament, it is void. Consequentty, a singte judge has power to handte a[[ intertocutory matters.

25 The pertinent question however is whether an apptication to strike out an appeat resutts in an intertocutory order. We think not.

Rute 50 of the Rutes of this Court is ctear. lt exctudes from the purview of the powers of a singte Justice, apptications to strike out an appeal.. The Rute provides that:

30 50. Hearing of apptications.

(1) Every apptication, other than an apptication inctuded in subru[e

(2) of this rule, shatl be heard by a singte judge of the court; except that the appLication may be adjourned by the judge for determination by the court.

(2) This ruLe shatl not appLy to the foltowing-

(a) an apptication for leave to appeal, or for a certificate that a question or questions of great public or generaL importance arise;

(b) an apptication for a stay of execution, injunction or stay of proceedings;

(c) an apptication to strike out a notice of appeal or an appeat; or

(d) an apptication made as anciILary to an apptication under paragraph (a) or (b) of this subrule or made informally in the course of the hearing, inctuding an apptication for teave or to extend time if the proceedings are found to be deficient in those matters in the course of the hearing.

To dispose of an appeat, the Supreme Court has to be ful.ty constituted. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to deaL with appea[s is granted by articte

132 (2) of the Constitution and that jurisdiction is wietded by a minimum of ^five justices of the Supreme Court white intertocutory apptications are not the appeal. itsetf and can be handled in terms of section I (1) of the Judicature Act, by a singLe Justice. 15

We therefore respectful. Ly hotd that the singte Justice had no jurisdiction to strike out an appeaI or entertain Supreme Court CiviI Apptication No. 016 of 2022 and his decision thereunder is a nuttity and of no effect. We hereby set rt aside. The granting of the apptication in Civit Appeat No. 016 of 2022 fo[[ows the finding of the singl'e Justice in CrviI Apptication No. 018 of 2022 that the appeal of the appetl.ant had been lodged out of time and there was no sufficient cause to extend time to vatidate the appeat. 20 25

Having hetd that the learned singte Justice had no jurisdiction to hear Civit Apptication No. 016 of 2022, there would be no need to consider the other grounds of the reference as the appeal woutd be restored. Neverthetess, we wish to comment on a matter of fact as wet[ as of law on whether there

is need to consider Miscetlaneous Apptication No. 018 of 2022 as to whether the appeal was lodged out of time. 30

The record of appeat was served on the appeLtant on the 2nd of December 2021 and the appeal. was fited on 14th Feb 2022. The computation of time depends on what is meant by Christmas vacation under rute 4 (e) of the Rutes of this court which stipul.ates that.

#### ⁵ 4. Computation of time

Any period of time fixed by these Rutes or by any decision of the court for doing any act shatl be reckoned in accordance with the fotlowing provisions-

(a) a period of days from the happening of an event or the doing of any act or thing shatt be taken to be exclusive of the day on which the event happens or that act or thing is done;

(b)

(e) unless the court otherwise directs, the period of the Christmas vacation sha[L not be reckoned in the computation of time.

Under ru[es 79, an appeal. is supposed to be instituted with sixty days after the date the notice of appeaI was [odged. ln computing time, the rute atso factors in the period taken to prepare and detiver to the appeLl.ant a copy of the certified record of proceedings of the Court of Appeal.. 1.5

RuLe 79 provides that:

79. lnstitution of appeats.

20 (1) Subject to rule 109 of these Rutes and subrute (4) of this rute, an appeal shatl be instituted in the court by todging in the registry, within sixty days after the date when the notice of appeaL was todged- ...

(2) Where an appLication for a copy of the proceedings in the Court of AppeaL has been made within thirty days after the date of the decision against which it is 23 desired to appeal, there shatt, in computing the time within which the appeal is to be instituted, be exctuded such time as may be certified by the registrar of the Court of Appeal as having been required for the preparation and detivery to the appeLtant of that copy.

The question of law presented is what is meant by Christmas vacationunder 30 rul.e 4 (e) of the Rul.es of this Court? We have considered the rul.ing of the singte Justice and with due respect to his consideration of lhe"Christmas holidal , we note that what is meant under the rutes is " Christmas vacatiod' and not hotiday. Hotidays are separatety provided for under rute 4 (b) which caters for pubtic hotidays. The way pubtic hotidays are factored in 3s computation of time is different from that for the Christmas vacation. lt is - sufficient for us to find that it was erroneous to consider excluded days under rute 4 of the Rutes of this Court on the premise of pubtic hotidays. What shoul.d be considered is exclusion of the Christmas vacation period under rute 4 (e) and the onty question being what period of the catendar this e nta iLs. - Mr. Ssempata urged us to consider rule 110 (2) of the Rutes of this Court in conjunction with Order 5l ruLe 4 of the Civil Procedure Rutes for purposes of defining Christmas vacation. On the other hand, Mr. Mwebesa urged us to consider the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rutes to reach a conctusron in the matter. 10 - Under Order 51 ruLe 4 of the Civil Procedure Rutes, the period between 24th December of any year and 'l5th of January of any year is a court vacation. 0n the other hand, under the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rutes S.l. 13 - ³⁰ vacation periods inctude that from 23'd December to 7th January. 15

Both the Civil Procedure Rutes and the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rutes do not appl.y to the Supreme Court. Under rute 2 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rutes, the word "court" thereunder means the High Court or any court constituted under the Magistrates Courts Act. ln terms of the CiviL Procedure Rutes, rute 2 on appl.ication of the rutes provides that: 20

These Rutes shalt appty, as far as practicable, and unless otherwise expressly provided, to a[L matters arising and to a[L proceedings taken on any matters under the Act, or any Act amending the Act.

The Civit Procedure Act and section 1 there is inc[usive and provides that:

This Act shaLL extend to proceedings in the High Court and magistrates courts

The Civrt Procedure Act is a Parent Act governing civiI procedure and it even has provisions on appeats to the High Court and to the Court of Appea[ on the issue of jurisdiction as far as first and second appeats are concerned general.ty. The Court of AppeaL envisaged therein was the hrghest appettate court before the Supreme Court was created as an appettate court hearing appeats from the Court of Appeat under the 1995 Constitution. The Supreme 30

- ⁵ Court was no envisaged under the CiviL Procedure Act. Section 2 (b) of the CiviI Procedure Act which defines "court" to mean any court exercising civiI jurisdiction coutd not have envisaged the Supreme Court and word "rutes" which is defined by section 2 (t) to mean rules and forms made by the rules committee to regulate the procedure of courts does not incl.ude the - Judicature (Supreme Court Rul.es) Directions S.l l3 11 on the question of court vacations. 10

The Rutes of this Court were made under rule 4] (1) of the Judicature Act cap'13. Moreover, section al (1) of the Judlcature Act Cap 13 which gives generaI powers to the Rutes Committee to make rutes to regutate the procedure of this court, makes express provision giving specif ic powers to make rutes regutating the procedure of the High Court for purposes of court vacations but is sil.ent about simitar rutes for the Court of Appeat and the Supreme Court. ln section 41 (2) (b) of the Judicature Act the Rul.es Committee is empowered to make rutes on court vacations for the High Court white the section is sitent about the Supreme Court. Section 41 of the Judicature Act in so far as is retevant provides that

41. Functions of the RuLes Committee.

('l) The RuLes Committee may, by statutory instrument, make ruLes for regutating the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court, the Court of AppeaL and the High Court of Uganda and for a[[ other courts tn Uganda subordinate to the High Cou rt.

(2) Without prejudice to the generaI apptication of subsection Committee may make ruLes of court under that subsection for- (1), the Rutes

(a) regutating the sittings of the High Court and of its judges cha m bers; in court or in

(b) regul.ating vacations and hearings during vacations by judges of the High Court of aL[ such applications as may be required to be immediately or promptty heard;

The above power to make rutes reguLating court vacations does not give express power to make rutes regutating vacations in the Supreme Court.

⁵ We note that the term "Christmas vacation" is not def ined by Rutes 4 (e) of the RuLes of this Court which are the rutes appticabte for appeats todged in thrs Court. We have atso considered rules 110 (2) which provide that:

110. TransitionaI provisions.

- (1) ln aLt proceedings pending in the court... - (2) Notwithstanding subru[e (1) of this ruLe, in any case of difficul.ty or doubt, ^a judge or the registrar may informatty give directions as to the procedure to be adopted, where it is impracticabte to superimpose these Rules on the practice and procedure obtaining before the coming into force of these Rutes. 10

15 Rute 110 (2) appties to a situation where it is difficutt to superimpose the Ru[es on the practice and procedure obtaining before the coming into force of the RuLes. We find that rute 110 generatl.y is inappticabte to computation of time where the controversy rs about what is meant by Christmas vacation as provided for under rute 4 (e) of the Rutes of this Court.

We have further considered rute 2l of the Rutes of this Court which provides that:

21. Vacat ions

('l) The vacations of the court and the arrangement of business during the vacations shalL be determined by the Chief Justice, and those arrangements shatl be advertised or notified in a manner directed by the Chief Justice.

²⁵ (2) No business wiL[ be conducted during a vacation, unLess the Chief Justice otherwise directs, except the deLivery of judgments and orders, when the matter is shown to be one of urgency, the hearing of applications and the taxation of bit[s.

30 Rute 21 deats with other vacations of the Court other than the Christmas vacation which is separate[y provided for. There is therefore no definition of the term Christmas vacation as used under rute 4 (e) of the RuLes of this Court. Because the term Christmas vacation is taken for granted and ts not def ined, we are Left with the option estabtishing the meaning of the term by considering how the terms has been used before, if at aLt, under other rutes of Procedure governing courts of judicature. The term Christmas vacation

- is not defined or even referred to under the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules. lt is further not defined under 0rder 51 ruLe 4 of the CiviI Procedure Rules which gives the period around the Christmas hotiday a specific court vacation period which inctudes the period before Christmas and after the I't of January every year. We note that the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rutes - does not define the term "Christmas vacation" white 0rder 51 rul.e 4 of the Civil Procedure Rutes also does not define the term and prescribed ^a definite period around the Christmas hotiday season. The Judicature (Court Vacation) Rutes provrdes for two vacations of the court one of which is between 23'd December and 7th January and can be taken to be approximate 10 - to a Christmas vacation period. 15

The practical issue is whether we shoutd take the term Christmas vacation as used under rule 4 (e) of the Rutes of this Court to mean the period from 23'd of December or 24th of December of any year and whether it extends up to 7th of January in accordance with rute 3 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rutes or to l5th of January in accordance with 0rder 51 rute 4 of the Civil. Procedure Rules.

Rute 3 provides of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rutes that:

"ln each year the court sha[[ be in vacation from the 15th Ju[y to the 15th August inctusive and f rom 23ld December to the 7rh January inctusive".

0n the other hand, 0rder 5l rute 4 of the Civit Procedure Rutes provides that: 25

4. Time expiring between 24th December and 15th January.

Unless otherwise directed by the court, the period between the 24th day of December in any year and the 15th day of January in the year foLlowing, both days inclusive, shatl not be reckoned in the computation of the time appointed or atlowed by these Rutes for amending. delivering or f iting any pLeading or for doing any other act; except that this ruLe shatl not appLy to any apptication for an interim injunction, or to any business classified by the registrar or by a magistrate's court as urgent.

5 The Court of AppeaI in their decision in Byeitima and 2 0thers Vs Asaba (Civit Appeat No. 264 of 2013) [2015] UGCA 86 defined Christmas vacation when they hetd that

> Rute 4 of the Rules of this Court requires that in reckoning time the period of Christmas vacation shat[ not be taken into account subject to direction of this Court. Order 51 r.4 of the Civit Procedure Rutes defines Christmas vacation to mean the period from 24'h December to 15'h January in the year foLtowing.

We are not bound to foltow this ruting but may if we find it to be persuasive. For purposes of the appticant's appeal, if we go by the two weeks' period from 23'd December to 7th January, the period of 60 days under rule 79 shatt be reckoned as foLlows:

Firstl.y, if the period between 23'd December and 7th January 2022 is excluded rn reckoning the 60 days, the appeal. was fited in time because the appel.tant had spent about 2l days out of the 60 days with effect from 2"d December before the excluded court vacation days and thereafter after the

- 7th of January to 15th February is 37 days. lf 37 days is added to 21 days, it makes 58 days. Even if one adds another two days to the 58 days, it witt be 60 days rendering the appeal fited timety on the 60th day from the date certified by the Registrar as the time when the record was avaited to the appeiLant. lt f oU.ows that the main issue is whether the learned Justice erred 20 - not to consider various periods prescribed for lower courts under the Judicature Court Vacation Rules and under the CiviL Procedure Rules respectivety as the Christmas vacation which ought to be exctuded in computing time. 25

The above rules are however inappticabte as rute 2 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rul.es provides that: 30

2. Interpretation

In these Rutes, "court" means the High Court and any court constituted by or under the Magistrates Courts Act.

Moreover, rule 2l of the Rules of this Court provides that the vacations of this Court and the business during vacation shatt be determined by the Chief 35

- ⁵ Justice.0n the Other hand, rute 4 (e) altows the Court not the Chief Justice to otherwise direct whether the period of Christmas Vacation shatL be reckoned in computing time. The Court is defined by rul.e 3 (g) of the Rul.es of this Court as the Supreme Court of Uganda established under articl.e ]29 of the Constitution. lt foltows that untess the Supreme Court otherwise directs, the period of the Christmas vacation shat[ not be reckoned rn the computation of time. The directions of the Chief Justice under rute 21 (1) ot the Rutes of this Court does not inctude drrection retating to whether the Christmas vacation shoutd be inctuded in the computation of time prescribed by rules or ordered by Court, 10 - FinaLty rul.e 4 (e) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rul.es) Directions and Order 5l rute 4 of the Civit Procedure Rutes both give the retevant courts to which the rul.es appLy, discretionary power to make orders that something coutd be done within a time specified by court by order, and the computation of the time prescribed as a court vacation may be reckoned in computing 15 - such time ordered within which some may be done. 0n the other hand, rute 3 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rutes uses mandatory Language by stating that the prescribed two periods of court vacation "shall" be court vacations. lt provides that in that period: "ln each year the court shalI be in vacation..." and specif ies the two period. 20 - Considering that the term Christmas vacation is not used except under rute 4 (e) of the Rules of this Court, there is lacunae in the Law which makes it impossibte to operationalise rute 4 (e) of the Rutes of this court without giving a specific period which ought to reftect a customary Christmas vacation period as envisaged in the rutes. 25 - We f ind that the most proximate rute from which we can import the meanrng of Christmas vacation is 0rder 51 rul.e 4 of the Civil. Procedure Rutes which gives the period within which the lower courts had excluded days for purposes of fil.ing un[ike rute 3 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules which onty specifies court vacations without deal'ing with exclusion of days 30 - for purposes of computation of time. We therefore borrow the period used under Civil. Procedure Rules as refl.ecting the customary Christmas vacation 35

- ⁵ period to determine what is meant by the term Christmas vacation under ruLe 4 (e) of the RuLes of this Court as hetd under a rute in pari materiaby the Court of Appeat in Byeitima and 2 Others Vs Asaba (supra). This means that the traditional Christmas vacation which alLows for travel and hoLiday time woutd best accommodate the meaning of Christmas vacation of the - Supreme Court under rute 4 (e) unless and untiI otherwise prescribed. Untess otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court du[y constituted, the period of the Christmas vacation shatt not be reckoned in computing time. 10

ln any case, we find that the appettant's appeaI was fited within 60 days and attow the reference on this point atone.

- ln the circumstances, there was no need for the appel.l.ant to file or argue any appl.ication to vatrdate his appeaI and we accordingly strike out CiviI Apptication No. 018 of 2022 with no order as to costs. Civit Appl.ication No. 016 of 2022 which was an application to strjke out the appeal. cannot be disposed of by a panel of three Justices and shatl be put before the futty constituted bench of this court for finaI resotution together with the appeat. 15 20 - The appetlant's reference succeeds with costs.

Dated at Kampal.a tfre fOay of August ²⁰²³

U.- ,to"^1-t "-,--r..- Prof. Littian Tibatemwa - Ekirikubinza

Justice of the Supreme Court

Percy Night Tuhaise

Justice of the Supreme Court

Christopher Madrama lzama

Justice of the Supreme Court

\\*\ ll 2\ fuLD Aqd""f") tu4- I.