[1998] UGCA 21

[1998] UGCA 21

The court held that Rule 82 presupposes the existence of a valid notice of appeal before an application to lodge an appeal out of time can be considered. In this case, the applicant's original notice of appeal had been struck out, and no valid notice was in existence at the time of the application. The court found...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] UGCA 21
Parties
Applicant: Uganda Revenue Authority; Respondent: Bushenyi Commercial Agencies & 2 Others
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Application No. 54 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
application struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Extension of Time, Preliminary Objection, Competency of Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Notice of Appeal Extension of Time Preliminary Objection Competency of Application

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

Uganda Revenue Authority

Applicant

Bushenyi Commercial Agencies & 2 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether an application to lodge an appeal out of time is competent where the original notice of appeal has been struck out.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a subsisting notice of appeal renders the application incompetent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 82 presupposes the existence of a valid notice of appeal before an application to lodge an appeal out of time can be considered. In this case, the applicant's original notice of appeal had been struck out, and no valid notice was in existence at the time of the application. The court found that, in the absence of a subsisting notice of appeal, the application was incompetent. The court further noted that the intention of counsel to file a fresh notice was not reflected in the documents before the court, and the court is bound to proceed on the basis of the documents actually filed. Accordingly, the application was struck out as incompetent.

Court Disposition

application struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The application is struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.