Namoda v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 21.98) [1999] UGCA 73 (4 March 1999)

| | $\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}}$ | |--|-----------------------------| | | |

| | $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{L}}$ | | | | | |--|-----------------------------|--|--|--|--| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA

AT KAMPALA

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 21/98

CORAM: HON. MR. JUSTICE C. M. KATO, J. A. HON. LADY JUSTICE A. E. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE, J. A. HON. LADY JUSTICE C. N. B. KITUMBA, J. A.

LAWRENCE NAMODA...................................

VERSUS

THE NEW VISION PRINTING & PUBLISHING CORPORATION....................................

RULING OF THE COURT:

When this appeal came for hearing Mr. Nalyanya learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the memorandum of appeal was materially defective as it did not comply with the provisions of Rule $85(1)$ of the rules of this court in that the grounds were too vague. He argued that the first ground did not specify what points of law were wrongly decided nor did ground two say how the lower court had occasioned miscarriage of justice. He also submitted that the prayer in the memorandum of appeal was superfluous in that it was seeking for an order which had already been made by the lower court. He prayed that the appeal be struck out with costs.

On his part Mr. Musiiho for the appellant submitted that the memorandum of appeal was competent in that questions of law do not have to be stated in the memorandum of appeal, in his view, to do so would amount to being narrative.

He prayed that the objection be rejected.

Upon listening to the arguments advanced by both counsel and upon reading the memorandum of appeal and the provisions of Rule $85(1)$ of the rules of this court, we are of the view that the memorandum of appeal is incurably defective as it does not comply with the provisions of Rule $85(1)$ of the rules of this court. It does not disclose the points of law which were wrongly decided by learned trial judge. With due respect, we do not agree with Mr. Musiiho's contention that such points can only be disclosed in the course of the hearing of the appeal. The provisions of the rule are mandatory as the other side is entitled to know before hand what points are to be argued at the hearing.

In the result we uphold the objection and strike out the appeal with costs to the Respondent here and in the court below.

Dated at Kampala this $4^{th}$ day of March, 1999.

Justice of Appeal.

A. E. Mpagi-Bahigeine Justice of Appeal.

> Cres. Cilu C. N. B. Kitumba Justice of Appeal.