Share
Kageni and Another v Gole (Civil Application 15 of 2007) [2007] UGSC 28 (17 October 2007)
- Citation
- [2007] UGSC 28
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Odoki, CJ, Tsekooko, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Katureebe, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC
- Case number
- Civil Application 15 of 2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Odoki, CJ, Tsekooko, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Katureebe, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC
- Case number
- Civil Application 15 of 2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
ApplicantElectoral Commission
ApplicantGole Nicholas Davis
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice and Appeal for Late Filing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules or the Supreme Court Rules govern the time limits for filing election petition appeals in the Supreme Court.
- 02
Whether the memorandum and record of appeal were filed out of time and if so, whether the appeal should be struck out or extension of time granted.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Uganda
Judgment
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
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.