Share
Atyaba Agencies Ltd v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Civil Application 110 of 2003) [2004] UGCA 23 (16 January 2004)
- Citation
- [2004] UGCA 23
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Okello, JA, Twinomujuni, JA, Kitumba, JA
- Case number
- Civil Application 110 of 2003
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Okello, JA, Twinomujuni, JA, Kitumba, JA
- Case number
- Civil Application 110 of 2003
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. was not a party to the original proceedings in the High Court and therefore lacked locus standi to prosecute Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2003. The Notice of Appeal was filed by Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd., which did not take further steps to institute the appeal within the prescribed sixty days. As a result, the notice of appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn under rule 83 of the Court of Appeal Rules, and no valid appeal exists. The court's inherent powers cannot be invoked to substitute the appellant in the absence of a valid pending appeal. Consequently, the application to strike out the appeal is allowed.
Court disposition
application_allowed
Orders
- Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2003 is struck out.
- Costs awarded to the applicant.
02
Material facts
Parties
Atyaba Agencies Ltd.
Applicant Counsel: Kwesigabo, Bamwine and Walubiri AdvocatesStanbic Bank Uganda Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: Dr. Joseph Byamugisha03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. had locus standi to prosecute Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2003.
- 02
Whether the appeal was properly instituted by a party to the original proceedings.
- 03
Whether the court could substitute the appellant under its inherent powers after the expiry of the prescribed time for instituting an appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. was not a party to the proceedings in the lower court and therefore had no locus to institute the appeal. The Notice of Appeal was filed by Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd., and the decree from the lower court also indicated Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. as the defendant. The applicant maintained that the two banks had never been legally merged and that Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. could not prosecute the appeal.
- Respondent
- The respondent conceded that a legal merger between Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. and Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. had not yet occurred. However, the respondent argued that Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. had the financial capacity to satisfy the decree, unlike Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd., which was under liquidation. The respondent requested, in the alternative, that the court use its inherent powers to substitute Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. with Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. as the appellant.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court of Appeal Rules Directions, 1996
Only a party to the original proceedings has locus standi to institute an appeal.
- 02
Court of Appeal Rules, rule 82(1) and rule 83
An appeal must be instituted within sixty days after filing the notice of appeal; failure to do so results in deemed withdrawal of the notice.
- 03
Court of Appeal Rules, rule 1(3)
The court's inherent powers may only be exercised where there is a valid pending appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. was not a party to the original proceedings in the High Court and therefore lacked locus standi to prosecute Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2003. The Notice of Appeal was filed by Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd., which did not take further steps to institute the appeal within the prescribed sixty days. As a result, the notice of appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn under rule 83 of the Court of Appeal Rules, and no valid appeal exists. The court's inherent powers cannot be invoked to substitute the appellant in the absence of a valid pending appeal. Consequently, the application to strike out the appeal is allowed.
Obiter and limits
- The physical merger of Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. and Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. is an ongoing process and does not confer legal standing for appeal purposes.
- The court's inherent powers are limited to situations where a valid appeal is pending; they cannot be used to revive an appeal that has lapsed due to procedural default.
Court disposition
application_allowed
- Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2003 is struck out.
- Costs awarded to the applicant.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CORAM: HON. MR. JUSTICE G. M. OKELLO, JA HON. MR. JUSTICE A. TWINOMUJUNI, JA HON. LADY JUSTICE C. N. B. KITUMBA, JA
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2003
$10$
$20$
ATYABA AGENCIES LTD.::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT
VERSUS
STANBIC BANK UGANDA LTD.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: [Arising out of Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2003]
RULING OF THE COURT
This application is brought by Notice of Motion under rules 42 and 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules Directions, 1996. It seeks for an order to strike out Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2003 on the ground that the appellant is not a party to the appeal.
The main grounds of the application are:
- That the Appeal was instituted in the names of a $"1.$ wrong party who was not party to the proceedings in the lower court. - That M/s STANBIC BANK UGANDA LTD. has never $2.$ $30$ been merged with Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd.
3. That in the premises there is no appeal from the Decree of the High Court in HCCS No. 1197 of 1999".
The application is supported by two affidavits of Andrew Wamina who is an advocate practising in the law firm of Kwesigabo, Bamwine and Walubiri Advocates, counsel for the applicant. The applicant was the plaintiff in HCCS No. 1197 of 1999.
The first affidavit was deponed to on $8^{th}$ September, 2003 and filed in court on the same day. The second affidavit, which is supplementary to the first one, was also sworn on 8<sup>th</sup> September, 2003 but filed in court on the following day.
The substance of Wamina's affidavits is that the present appellant, M/s Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd., is a different entity from Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. which was thedefendant in HCCS No. 1197 of 1997. The two companies have never been legally merged. There is an affidavit in reply by Dr. Joseph Byambara Byamugisha, learned counsel for the respondent, sworn on $9<sup>th</sup>$ September 2003. In his affidavit he avers that on 21<sup>st</sup> February 2002, with the approval of the Bank of Uganda, Standard Bank Investment Corporation Ltd. made an agreement which is annexture "B" to his affidavit with Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. Under the agreement Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. ceded and assigned its obligations to Stanbic Bank of Uganda Ltd.
$20$
$10$
$\overline{2}$
On 13th September, 2002 a merger agreement was concluded between Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. and Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. The agreement is confidential and would be produced at the trial. That the physical merger of Uganda Commercial Bank and Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited was expected and that when the physical merger of the two banks was completed, Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. would be wound up.
10 and 20 There is also a second affidavit in reply by Syson Kekurutso, the compliance manager of Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. sworn on 10th September 2003. She avers that a sale of shares agreement was concluded between the Government of the Republic of Uganda, Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. and Standard Bank Group Ltd. She also avers that on 13th September 2002 between Stanbic a merger agreement was concluded Bank Uganda Ltd. and Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. However, the physical merger of the operations could not be concluded in one single transaction but it is an ongoing process. That management decided that when a branch of Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. satisfies the requirements, the branch is labelled and marked Stanbic Bank of Uganda Ltd.
During the hearing of the application Mr. Peter Walubiri, learned counsel for the applicant, based his submissions on Mr. Andrew Wamina's supporting affidavits and the annextures attached thereto.
defendants were Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. and the Attorney General. However, according to Annexture "F", the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant is Stanbic Bank Ltd. The appellant Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. is a new entity and has never been a party to the proceedings in the lower court. It has, therefore, no locus to institute the appeal. As the grounds were interrelated, learned counsel argued all of them together. He submitted that the Notice of Appeal (Annexture "E") shows that the party which intended to appeal is Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. Annexture "G" which is the decree of the lower court indicates that the
10
l
o
20
Dr. Byamugisha conceded that Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd and Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd had not yet been legally merged. He even called Ms. Syson Kekurutso who gave evidence to that effect.
it He He explained that the reason why he filed the appeal in the names of Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd was to assist the respondent to recover the decretal amount in case succeeded. Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd had the capacity to pay whereas Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd, which is currently under liquidation, had no such capacity, requested in the alternative, that should the court find that he was in the wrong, it should invoke its inherent powers to strike out the name of Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. and replace it with that of Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd.
4
From the evidence available and submissions of counsel it is clear to us that Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. is still a separate legal entity from Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. $M/s$ Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. filed the Notice of Appeal against the judgment of the High Court in HCCS No. 1197 of 1997 on 20<sup>th</sup> March 2003. It did not take any further steps to prosecute the appeal.
In order to properly institute the appeal, $M/s$ Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. had to follow rule 82 (1) of the Rules of this court which provides that the appeal must be instituted within sixty days after filing the notice of appeal. In case one fails to do so, rule 83 of the Rules comes into operation. It provides as follows:
"83 if a party who has lodged a notice of appeal fails to institute an appeal within the prescribed time-
(a) He or she shall be taken to have withdrawn his or her notice of appeal and shall, unless the court otherwise orders, be liable to pay the costs arising from it of any persons on whom the <pre>notice of appeal was served;" (underlining ours.)</pre>
In the circumstances of this case we find that Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd. must be deemed in law to have abandoned its appeal. Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. had no locus standi to prosecute the appeal.
Dr. Byamugisha requested us to use our inherent powers according to rule $1(3)$ of the Rules of this court and strike $30$ out from the memorandum of appeal the name Stanbic
$10$
$\overline{ }$
Bank Uganda Ltd. and restore that of Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd.
In our view, the inherent powers of this court can only be used where there is a valid pending appeal. In the instant case, the notice of appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn after the expiry of sixty days prescribed by rule 82 (1) of the Rules of this court. No appeal exists. We are, therefore, not able to grant Dr. Byamugisha's request.
In the circumstances we find merit in the application. It is, therefore, allowed with costs to the respondent.
Dated at Kampala this.................................... .2004.
kello
Justice of Appeal
ppeal ustice of $\alpha$
Cres, K C. N. B. Kitumba Justice of Appeal
$20$
$10$
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.