Download

Uganda Judgment

Supreme Court of Uganda

Kageni and Another v Gole (Civil Application 15 of 2007) [2007] UGSC 28 (17 October 2007)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Supreme Court held that the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules, not the general Supreme Court Rules, govern the time limits for filing election petition appeals in the Supreme Court. These rules require the memorandum of appeal to be filed within 7 days and the record of appeal within 30 days of receipt of the record. Since the respondent filed both documents 45 days after receipt, the appeal was technically out of time and thus incompetent. However, due to the apparent misunderstanding by counsel regarding the applicable rules, and in the interest of justice, the court declined to strike out the appeal. Instead, the court granted an extension of time up to the date the documents were actually filed, regularizing the appeal. The applicant was awarded costs for the application, limited to one counsel.

Court disposition

Application partially allowed; extension of time granted; costs to applicant for one counsel.

Orders

  • Extension of time granted to the respondent to file the appeal up to 1st October 2007.
  • Applicant awarded costs of the application, certified for one counsel only.

02

Material facts

Parties

Loi Kageni Kiryapawo

Applicant

Electoral Commission

Applicant

Gole Nicholas Davis

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice and Appeal for Late Filing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules apply to election appeals in the Supreme Court, requiring the memorandum of appeal to be filed within 7 days and the record of appeal within 30 days of receipt of the record. Since the documents were filed 45 days after receipt, they were out of time and the appeal should be struck out.
Respondent
The respondent contended that the Supreme Court Rules, not the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules, apply to election appeals in the Supreme Court. Under these rules, the memorandum and record of appeal must be filed within 60 days of receipt of the record, so the appeal was filed in time.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules

    The specific rules made for election petitions, namely the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules, are applicable to election petition appeals to the Supreme Court, as they are intended to expedite such matters.

  2. 02

    Court's inherent discretion; interest of justice

    Where there is apparent misunderstanding of the applicable rules, the court may exercise discretion in the interest of justice to grant extension of time rather than strike out the appeal.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules, not the general Supreme Court Rules, govern the time limits for filing election petition appeals in the Supreme Court. These rules require the memorandum of appeal to be filed within 7 days and the record of appeal within 30 days of receipt of the record. Since the respondent filed both documents 45 days after receipt, the appeal was technically out of time and thus incompetent. However, due to the apparent misunderstanding by counsel regarding the applicable rules, and in the interest of justice, the court declined to strike out the appeal. Instead, the court granted an extension of time up to the date the documents were actually filed, regularizing the appeal. The applicant was awarded costs for the application, limited to one counsel.

Obiter and limits

  • The Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules were made with the specific objective of expediting the hearing of election petitions.
  • The court is not inclined to strike out the appeal due to the apparent misunderstanding by counsel for the respondent of the applicable rules.

Court disposition

Application partially allowed; extension of time granted; costs to applicant for one counsel.

  • Extension of time granted to the respondent to file the appeal up to 1st October 2007.
  • Applicant awarded costs of the application, certified for one counsel only.

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court 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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2007] UGSC 28

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2007 (ARISING FROM ELECTION PETITION APPEAL NO. 0010 OF 2006)

1. LOI KAGENI KIRYAPAWO 2. ELECTORAL COMMISSION::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

VERSUS

GOLE NICHOLAS DAVIS::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[CORAM: ODOKI, CJ; TSEKOOKO, JSC; MULENGA. JSC KANYIEHAMBA, JSC; KATUREEBE, JSC

RULING OF COURT

This is an application to strike out a notice of appeal and the appeal on the ground that both the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal were filed out of time.

The applicant contends that the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules apply to election appeals lodged in the Supreme Court. According to these rules a memorandum of appeal must be filed within 7 days and a record of appeal must be filed within 30 days of receipt of the record.

In the present case, the memorandum of appeal and record of appeal were filed on 1<sup>st</sup> October 2007, 45 days after receipt of the record, and therefore out of time.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent that the Parliamentary Elections arques (Election Petition) Rules do not apply to the election appeals in the Supreme Court, but it is the Supreme Court Rules which apply. These rules require memorandum and record of appeal to be filed within 60 days of receipt of the record of proceedings. Therefore, according to counsel for the respondent the memorandum of appeal and · record of proceedings were filed in time.

our view the Parliamentary Elections In (Election Petition) Rules are the proper rules to apply to election petition appeals since they were made with a specific objective of expediting the hearing of election petitions. .

Accordingly, we find that the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal filed on $1^{st}$ October 2007 were filed out of time. The appeal is therefore incompetent. However, in the interest of justice we are not inclined to strike out the appeal, considering the apparent misunderstanding by counsel for the respondent of the applicable rules.

the alternative prayer that the We accept respondent be granted extension of time in which to file the appeal, up to 1<sup>st</sup> October 2007 being the day on which he filed the record of appeal.

The applicant will have the costs of this application. We certify costs for one counsel only.

Dated at Mengo this $17^{th}$ day of October,

2007. zam ODOKI $B, V$

CHIEF JUSTICE

$BC$ J. W. N TSEKOOKO JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

J. N. MULENGA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT Gill anzahamba<br>G. W. KANYEIHAMBA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT Buckatur $L$

KATUREEBE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Supreme Court Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.