Share
Sabika v Luganda (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1999) [2001] UGHC 6 (17 October 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] UGHC 6
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Case number
- Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1999
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Case number
- Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1999
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the appeal was incompetent because it was filed without an extracted decree as required by law. The purported decree on record was not authentic, lacking the court seal and bearing a date inconsistent with the judgment. The Constitution did not alter the procedural requirement to file a decree with the memorandum of appeal. The responsibility to extract and file the decree lies with the appellant, not the court. The appeal was therefore struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court disposition
appeal_struck_out
Orders
- The appeal is struck out as incompetent.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
02
Material facts
Parties
Artmon Sabika
Appellant Counsel: Mr. KibonekaZekereya Luganda
Respondent Counsel: Mr. LutakomeAmounts and remedies
- Costs Awarded: 0
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appeal filed without an extracted decree is competent under Ugandan law.
- 02
Whether the Constitution has altered the requirement to file a decree with the memorandum of appeal.
- 03
Whether the court or the appellant is responsible for extracting the decree.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the appellant argued that the appeal is competent under Article 139(2) of the Constitution, which allows appeals from decisions of lower courts without the need to extract a decree or order. He cited Article 257, which defines judgment to include a decision, order, or decree, and Article 273, asserting that the Constitution changed the previous requirement. He further contended that a decree had been extracted and any impropriety should be blamed on the court, not the appellant.
- Respondent
- Counsel for the respondent argued that the appeal is incompetent because the appellant failed to extract and file the decree with the memorandum of appeal. He maintained that Article 273 of the Constitution does not alter the legal requirement to file a decree and that the responsibility to extract the decree lies with the appellant, not the court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 18 rule 7(1) Civil Procedure Rules
No appeal is competent until the formal decree or order embodying the decision complained of comes into existence.
- 02
Article 257 Constitution of Uganda
Judgment must include a decision, order, or decree of the court.
- 03
Article 139(2) Constitution of Uganda
Appeals from decisions of lower courts are permitted subject to the Constitution and other laws.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the appeal was incompetent because it was filed without an extracted decree as required by law. The purported decree on record was not authentic, lacking the court seal and bearing a date inconsistent with the judgment. The Constitution did not alter the procedural requirement to file a decree with the memorandum of appeal. The responsibility to extract and file the decree lies with the appellant, not the court. The appeal was therefore struck out with costs to the respondent.
Obiter and limits
- The law is clear on how an appeal is initiated; it is not the role of the court to extract decrees.
- Lack of a court seal denies the document any claim to authenticity.
- A decree must bear the date of the day on which the judgment was delivered; this is mandatory.
Court disposition
appeal_struck_out
- The appeal is struck out as incompetent.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
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
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f36\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f37\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f39\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f40\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f41\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f42\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f44\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph
Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid5120181 Normal (Web);}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid7410713 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid7410713 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid5120181\rsid5266681\rsid7410713\rsid11872143\rsid14693365}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA } {\author Administrator}{\operator jchemeri}{\creatim\yr2001\mo1\dy2\hr23\min9}{\revtim\yr2001\mo1\dy2\hr23\min17}{\version4}{\edmins9}{\nofpages3}{\nofwords554}{\nofchars3163}{\*\company
JSI}{\nofcharsws3710}{\vern24689}}\paperw11906\paperh16838 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot5120181\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid7410713 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid7410713 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid7410713 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid7410713 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\headery708\footery708\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid11872143\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql
\li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1069983 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid7410713 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid7410713 1}}}{\cs17\insrsid7410713 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid7410713 {\insrsid7410713 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid14693365 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14693365 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA \line
I}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 N THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid14693365 CIVIL}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 APPEAL NO.55 OF 1999 \line ARTMON }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14693365\charrsid14693365 SABIK}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid14693365 A}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14693365 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 APPELLANT \line VERSUS \line ZEKEREYA LUGANDA}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14693365 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 RESPONDENT \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14693365 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid14693365 {\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 BEFORE }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 -
}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. K. MUGAMBA }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 \line }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14693365 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 The appellant seeks to appeal the judgment of the Chief Magistrate at Mengo delivered on }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14693365 28}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid14693365\charrsid14693365 th}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 June 1999. Towards that end the appellant initiated Civil Appeal }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14693365 5}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 5/99 by filing a memorandum of appeal dated }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid14693365 27}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid14693365 th}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 July 1999. Nothing else was filed. Both counsel proceeded to address court on the viability of an appeal filed in t}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 he fashion already related to. \par
M}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 r. Kiboneka, counsel for the appellant, argued that the appeal is competent. He cited the provisions of Article 139 (2) of the Constitution in particular noting that whereas before the commencement of the present Constitution there was need to extract a decree or order to accompany a memorandum of appeal such need no longer exists. He stated that the Article under review provides: \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid7410713 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 \lquote Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and any other law, the decisions \line of any court lower than the High Court shall be appealable to the High Court\rquote . \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid5266681 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 He quoted also Article }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid7410713 257}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 of the
Constitution where judgment is stated to include a decision, an order or decree of the court. He argued that the position prior to the promulgation of the present Constitution was different as}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 an appeal then was only from }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 orders and decrees unlike now when the Constitution allows for appeals from decisions of lower courts. He called Article 273 of the Constitution to his aid. In any c ase, counsel continued, a decree had been extracted from the judgment of the lower court and any apparent impropriety that might attend it should be blamed on court and not the appellant. He contended }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713\charrsid11872143 there}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 was, at any rate, a decree on record. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 On his par t Mr. Lutakome counsel for the respondent argued that the appeal is incompetent. He stated that the party which wishes to appeal has a duty to extract the decree and file it with the memorandum. He said Article 273 of the Constitution in no way altered th e position of the law in this respect. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 \par
}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 Earlier on I noted that a memorandum of appeal had been filed on 27}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid7410713 th}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 July 1999 without a decree. On the original file from Mengo Chief Magistrate\rquote s court is what is headed \'93Decree In Original Suit\rquote and dated 20th Mar ch, 2000. It is purportedly signed by the Chief Magistrate but is bereft of the court seal. Lack of a court seal denies the document any claim to authenticity. As for the date, Order 18 rule 7 (1) CPR provides that a decree shall bear the date of the day on which the judgment was delivered. This is mandatory. The likely decree is dated 20th March 2000. Judgment as already noted was delivered on }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid7410713 28}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid7410713 th}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 June, 1999. The purported decree cannot by any stretch of imagination be a derivative of the judgment being referred to in the memorandum of appeal. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 I am not
persuaded by the argument put forth by Mr. Kiboneka that the Constitution has effected any charge. It does not. The position is still that no appeal is competent until the formal decree or order embodying t he decision complained of comes into existence. }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 See The New Vision & Another \emdash }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713\charrsid11872143 vs. -}{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 Luka Bamiango. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 Fort Portal High }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 Court Civil Appeal MFP }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 2/95 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 reported in [1995] 11 KALR 121 and }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 The Commissioner of Transport Vs The Attorney General of Uganda and Another }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid7410713 [1959]}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 EA 328. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 As for the role of the court in this saga, I do not find court to
blame at any stage. The law is clear on how an appeal is initiated. The appeal was initiated by professionals and it is not the role of court to extract decrees. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 This appeal is struck out as incompetent with cost}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 s to the respondent. \line \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid7410713 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 P. K. MUGAM}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 BA \line }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 JUDGE }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid7410713 \line 17/10/2001 \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5266681 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5120181\charrsid11872143 \par }}
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.