[2003] UGHC 92

[2003] UGHC 92

The appeal was filed outside the statutory period prescribed by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act. Although the appellant applied for certified copies of the judgment and proceedings, these were availed on 11th November 2002, yet the appeal was not lodged until 18th December 2002, well beyond the allowed period....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] UGHC 92
Parties
Appellant: Uganda Muslim Supreme Council; Respondent: Kanyongonya & 25 Others
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-05-CV-CA-019/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
appeal struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Appeal Timelines, Preliminary Objection, Limitation Periods, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Timelines Preliminary Objection Limitation Periods Procedural Compliance

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uganda Muslim Supreme Council

Appellant

Kanyongonya & 25 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was filed within the statutory period prescribed under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be excused by the time taken to obtain certified copies of judgment and proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution overrides procedural requirements for filing appeals.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was filed outside the statutory period prescribed by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act. Although the appellant applied for certified copies of the judgment and proceedings, these were availed on 11th November 2002, yet the appeal was not lodged until 18th December 2002, well beyond the allowed period. No good cause was shown for the delay, and the argument that the decree was only received on 20th November 2002 was rejected, as the extract of the decree was available in time. The court held that Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution does not override mandatory procedural requirements, and Section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot cure the defect of an appeal filed out...

Court Disposition

appeal struck out as incompetent

Orders

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