[2004] UGCA 39

[2004] UGCA 39

The Court held that Rule 101 of the Court of Appeal Rules requires a party to specify all grounds of appeal in the memorandum of appeal or notice of cross-appeal, and any additional grounds may only be argued with leave of the Court. The applicant demonstrated that the omission of the ground regarding mistrial was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] UGCA 39
Parties
Applicant: Steven Bujara; Respondent: Polly Twegye Bujara
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Application No. 11 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Leave to Argue Additional Ground of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Engwau, JA, Byamugisha, JA
Legal Topics
Leave to Amend Memorandum of Appeal, Additional Ground of Appeal, Court Discretion, Procedural Irregularity
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Amend Memorandum of Appeal Additional Ground of Appeal Court Discretion Procedural Irregularity

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Bujara

Applicant

Polly Twegye Bujara

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Leave to Argue Additional Ground of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to argue an additional ground in the pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the omission of the ground in the memorandum of appeal was inadvertent and justifies the exercise of the court's discretion.
  3. 3 Whether allowing the additional ground would prejudice the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Rule 101 of the Court of Appeal Rules requires a party to specify all grounds of appeal in the memorandum of appeal or notice of cross-appeal, and any additional grounds may only be argued with leave of the Court. The applicant demonstrated that the omission of the ground regarding mistrial was inadvertent and not intended to prejudice the respondent. The Court found no injustice would be caused to the respondent by allowing the additional ground, as she would have the opportunity to contest it on merit. The Court exercised its discretion under Rule 1(3) to grant the applicant leave to argue the additional ground in the appeal, finding sufficient cause to do so.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to argue the additional ground in the appeal.
  • Costs of the application will be in the cause.