[2021] UGSC 62

[2021] UGSC 62

The Supreme Court found that the respondent, having filed only a Notice of Appeal and not a memorandum of appeal, failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for prosecuting an appeal. The respondent did not demonstrate any active steps to pursue the appeal, nor did it provide evidence of efforts to obtain the record of proceedings or apply for extension of time. The Notice of Appeal, without a subsequent memorandum, does not constitute a valid appeal and cannot be used to delay or deny justice. The respondent's conduct amounted to an abuse of court process and was dilatory. Consequently, the application to strike out the Notice of Appeal was granted and the intended...

Citation
[2021] UGSC 62
Parties
Applicant: Wanyaka Samuel Huxley; Respondent: Uganda (Inspectorate of Government)
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
4 October 2021
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application_granted
Judges
Owiny-Dollo, CJ, Arach-Amoko, JSC, Mwondha, JSC, Muhanguzi, JSC, Mike Chibita, JSC
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal, Appeal Procedure, Dilatory Conduct, Striking Out Appeal
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Notice of Appeal Memorandum of Appeal Appeal Procedure Dilatory Conduct Striking Out Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wanyaka Samuel Huxley

Applicant

Uganda (Inspectorate of Government)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent filed a memorandum of appeal in the Supreme Court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent took active steps to pursue the intended appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the respondent, having filed only a Notice of Appeal and not a memorandum of appeal, failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for prosecuting an appeal. The respondent did not demonstrate any active steps to pursue the appeal, nor did it provide evidence of efforts to obtain the record of proceedings or apply for extension of time. The Notice of Appeal, without a subsequent memorandum, does not constitute a valid appeal and cannot be used to delay or deny justice. The respondent's conduct amounted to an abuse of court process and was dilatory. Consequently, the application to strike out the Notice of Appeal was granted and the intended...

Court Disposition

application_granted

Orders

  • The Notice of Appeal in Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2019 is struck out.
  • The intended appeal against the applicant is dismissed.