Share
Oddy v Sunrise Associated Auctioneers (Miscellaneous Application 152 of 1994) [1994] UGHC 67 (26 October 1994)
- Citation
- [1994] UGHC 67
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 152 of 1994
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 152 of 1994
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the appellant was not notified of the taxation proceedings and therefore lacked knowledge of the Deputy Registrar's order. This failure to notify constituted sufficient cause for the court to admit the appeal out of time under the proviso to section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act. The preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent due to late filing was overruled, and the appeal was allowed to proceed.
Court disposition
preliminary_objection_overruled
Orders
- The preliminary objection is overruled.
- The appeal is admitted as valid under the proviso to section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act.
02
Material facts
Parties
Godfrey Oddy Beijuka
AppellantM/S Sunrise Associated Auctioneers
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Taxed Costs Awarded: UGX 997,925
- Additional Disbursement: UGX 288,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appeal was filed outside the prescribed limitation period under section 80(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act.
- 02
Whether failure to notify the appellant of the taxation proceedings justified admission of the appeal out of time.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant was not notified of the taxation proceedings and therefore could not have known of the Deputy Registrar's order to appeal within the prescribed period. The failure to notify denied the appellant knowledge of the order, providing grounds for the court to admit the appeal under the proviso to section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the appeal was incompetent for having been filed outside the seven-day limitation period required by section 80(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act
An appeal must be filed within the prescribed limitation period unless the appellant was not notified of the order, in which case the court may admit the appeal out of time.
- 02
Civil Procedure Act, Section 80 proviso
Failure to notify a party of proceedings or orders may constitute sufficient cause to admit an otherwise invalid appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the appellant was not notified of the taxation proceedings and therefore lacked knowledge of the Deputy Registrar's order. This failure to notify constituted sufficient cause for the court to admit the appeal out of time under the proviso to section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act. The preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent due to late filing was overruled, and the appeal was allowed to proceed.
Court disposition
preliminary_objection_overruled
- The preliminary objection is overruled.
- The appeal is admitted as valid under the proviso to section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Source and reliance status
High 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.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC CF UMANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
MISC. APPL. NO. 152 CF 1994
GODFREY ODDY BEIJUKA EXPECTATION APPELLANT VRS. $\cdots \cdots \cdots$
M/S SUNRISE ASSOCIATED AUCTIONEERS : : : : : : : : RESPONDENT BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE G. M. CKELLO
RULING:
This ruling is in respect of a preliminary objection on a point of law raised at the beginning of the hearing of the application which was brought by notice of motion under $046_r$ . 8 of the civil procedure Rules. That application is actually an appeal against the decisions of the Deputy Registrar in a Taxation proceedings. Gounsel for the Respondent submitted in the preliminary objection that the appeal is incompetent for having been filed rutside the limitation period of seven days required by section $80$ (1) (0) of the Civil Procedure Act.
The back ground to the appeal is brief. The Applicant/Appellant one Godfrey Cddy Beijuka was the plaintiff in HCCS No. 823 of 1992. It would appear that in the course of the progress of that case, an order for injunction was obtained from court. The injunction order was given to Sunrise Associated Auctioneers to execute. They executed it. Upon that execution, Sunfise Associated Auctioneers filed their court Bailiff's Bill of cost. The Bill of cost was dated 27/5/93. It was taxed On 16/7/93 by the taxing master whr allowed the sum of shs. 997,925. Some how additional sum of shs. 288,000/= was again added to be paid to Sunrise Associated Auctioneer as disbursement.
$-.12.$
confirmed by paragraph 8 of^the affidavit in Reply which states in effect that the court Bailiff's Bill of cost wag taxed expanse. Purely if the Appellant was not informed of fcaxatiQn proceedings, h°w could he be expected to know^of the o^der^of the taxing master? Without knowledge,of the order, how could he appeal within the prescribed,period? In my view the failure to notify theuappellapt of the taxing proceeding, denied him^the knowledge of th\$ Deputy Registrar £rder. This pr°vided n-ord cause fo£ this court to admit the Otherwise invalid appeal filed rut of timg as v'.lid under the proviso Jr section 80 of the ci\ril procedure Act. The preliminary objection is therefore over-ruled.
o. M. CKSLL^ JUDGE.
26/10/9^
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.