Share
Okot & 4 Others v Abok (Miscellaneous Application 133 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 199 (9 April 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] UGHC 199
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Okello, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 133 of 2022
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Okello, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 133 of 2022
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application to strike out Civil Appeal No. 015/2022 on grounds of being filed out of time fails because the applicants did not discharge the burden of proving that the appeal was indeed lodged outside the statutory period. There was no evidence provided as to when the record of proceedings and judgment were availed to the respondent/appellant, which is necessary to determine whether the time for filing the appeal should be reckoned from the date of judgment or from the date the record was made available. In the absence of such proof, the court cannot conclusively find that the appeal was time-barred. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Court disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to strike out Civil Appeal No. 015/2022 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Okot Paulino
Applicant Counsel: Okot Douglas Odyek holding brief for Mr. Brian WatmonOdong Bosco
Applicant Counsel: Okot Douglas Odyek holding brief for Mr. Brian WatmonKinyera Richard
Applicant Counsel: Okot Douglas Odyek holding brief for Mr. Brian WatmonOnek Jacob
Applicant Counsel: Okot Douglas Odyek holding brief for Mr. Brian WatmonOjok David
Applicant Counsel: Okot Douglas Odyek holding brief for Mr. Brian WatmonAbok Yakobo Abong
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Civil Appeal No. 015/2022 was lodged outside the prescribed time limit under Section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act.
- 02
Whether the applicant discharged the burden of proving that the appeal was filed out of time.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that Civil Appeal No. 015/2022 was filed outside the statutory 30-day period prescribed for appeals against decisions of Magistrate Grade One under Section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act. They contended that the judgment was delivered on 21/01/2022 and the appeal was lodged on 15/03/2022, thus out of time. They sought to have the appeal struck out for being time-barred.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not participate in the proceedings and did not file any arguments or affidavits in response to the application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 79(1)(a) Civil Procedure Act
An appeal against the decision of a Magistrate Grade One must be lodged in the High Court within 30 days from the date of judgment.
- 02
Section 79(2) Civil Procedure Act
Time taken to prepare and avail the record of proceedings to the appellant may be excluded in reckoning the limitation period for filing an appeal.
- 03
Ephraim Ongom & Another Vs. Francis Benega, SC Civil Appeal No. 10/1987
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging that the appeal was filed out of time.
- 04
Otto Marcello & 4 Others Vs. Kinyera Patrick; Godfrey Tuwangye Kazzora Vs. Georgina Katarikwenda [1992-1993] 145
Absence of evidence as to when the record and judgment were availed to the appellant precludes a finding that the appeal was filed out of time.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application to strike out Civil Appeal No. 015/2022 on grounds of being filed out of time fails because the applicants did not discharge the burden of proving that the appeal was indeed lodged outside the statutory period. There was no evidence provided as to when the record of proceedings and judgment were availed to the respondent/appellant, which is necessary to determine whether the time for filing the appeal should be reckoned from the date of judgment or from the date the record was made available. In the absence of such proof, the court cannot conclusively find that the appeal was time-barred. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- No order as to costs is made since the respondent did not participate in the proceedings.
- The record of the trial court was not attached to the motion; only the certified judgment was provided.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- The application to strike out Civil Appeal No. 015/2022 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
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 OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT GULU MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 0133 OF 2022 (ARISING FROM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 015 OF 2022, itself Arising from Civil Suit No. 51/2018, formerly Civil Suit No. 51/2012)
$\mathsf{S}$
1. OKOT PAULINO 2. ODONG BOSCO 3. KINYERA RICHARD 4. ONEK JACOB
5. OJOK DAVID ....................................
VERSUS
ABOK YAKOBO ABONG ....................................
BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE GEORGE OKELLO
RULING
I have perused the Motion. It seeks to strike out Civil Appeal No. $015/2022$ . The ground is that the Appeal was lodged outside time. That Appeal is against the decision of Her Worship Susan Anyeko, Magistrate Grade One, given in Civil Suit No. 051/2018. It was delivered on $21/01/2022$ . The Appeal was lodged in this Court on 15/03/2022. An Appeal against the decision of Magistrate Grade One ought to be lodged in the High Court within 30 days under S.79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act (CPA). The Section provides an exception in reckoning of time under Section S.79(2) where time was taken to prepare and avail record of
HEADOW
$\mathsf{S}$ proceedings to the Appellant. See: Otto Marcello & 4 Others Vs. Kinyera Patrick; Godfrey Tuwangye Kazzora Vs. Georgina Katarikwenda [1992-1993] 145; Ephraim Ongom & Another & Vs. Francis Benega, SC Civil Appeal No. 10/1987. In this case, the record of the trial court is not attached to the Motion. What is attached is Judgment shown to have been certified on $04/02/2022$ . There is nothing to show when the 10 Judgment and record were availed to the Respondent who is the appellant in the impunged appeal.
The Applicant as a party contending that the appeal was lodged outside time bore the burden of proving that indeed the appeal was filed outside 15 time. In the absence of a deposition and proof when the record of the Proceedings of the trial court and Judgment were availed to the present Respondent, I am hesitant to find that the appeal was lodged outside time. In the circumstances, the Application has not been proved and stands 20 dismissed. I make no order as to costs, since the Respondent did not participate in this proceedings. I so order.
Delivered and dated at Gulu this 09<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2024.
George Okello JUDGE
$\mathsf{S}$ Ruling delivered in open Court
09<sup>th</sup> April, 2024
in the presence of:
Okot Douglas Odyek holding brief for Mr. Brian Watmon for the Applicants.
Mr. Stephen Ochan, Court Clerk. $10$
> HUARDEN George Okello JUDGE
$\mathbf{B}$
15
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.