Uganda Case Law

Masereka v Muhindo (Divorce Appeal No. 8 of 2017)

Masereka v Muhindo (Divorce Appeal No. 8 of 2017) [2023] UGHCFD 3 (6 February 2023)

Court

HC: Family Division (Uganda)

Case number

Divorce Appeal No. 8 of 2017

Judge

Wagona, J

The High Court held that a consent judgment, once endorsed by the court, is binding on the parties and can only be set aside on grounds that invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, illegality, or mistake. The appellant's attempt to challenge the consent judgment by way of appeal is incompetent, as the proper remedy is to apply to the court that recorded the consent for it to be set aside. The appeal was therefore dismissed as incompetent, and the related application for stay of execution was struck out.

Source excerpt

• Consent Judgment
• Divorce
• Property Distribution
• Appeal Incompetence

Akol v Attorney General

Akol v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No.073 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 103 (25 August 2014)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal No.073 of 2013

The High Court struck out this civil appeal as incompetent because the record of appeal did not include the order or decree appealed from.

• Appeal Incompetence
• Failure To Extract Order
• Dismissal Of Suit
• Reinstatement Of Suit
• Civil-procedure
• Appeal-incompetence

Vicent Kafureka v Yowana Katorobo

Vicent Kafureka v Yowana Katorobo (Civil Appeal No.12 Of 1995) (Civil Appeal No.12 of 1995) [2002] UGHC 79 (15 November 2002)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No.12 of 1995

The appeal was found incompetent because the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a properly extracted formal order or decree as required by law. The extracted order on file was dated eight days after the order referenced in the memorandum, creating uncertainty as to which order was being appealed. This defect goes to the jurisdiction of the appellate court and cannot be waived or cured by reliance on Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. The court applied binding precedent and the Civil Procedure Rules to conclude that the appeal must be struck out with costs.

Source excerpt

• Appeal Incompetence
• Extraction Of Order
• Jurisdictional Defect

African Cooperative Society v Uganda Railways Corporation

African Cooperative Society v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Application No. 24 of 2001) [2001] UGCA 44 (6 April 2001)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Application No. 24 of 2001

Judge

Berko, JA, Engwau, JA, Twinomujuni, JA

The Court found that the judgment in question was a consent judgment entered by both parties' counsel, with the respondent's counsel acting within his authority. Under section 69(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, no appeal lies from such a decree. Additionally, the notice of appeal was served on the applicant outside the seven-day period required by Rule 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules. Compliance with this rule is mandatory, and failure to serve the notice within time without obtaining leave of court renders the appeal incompetent. The applicant need not show prejudice or injury for the appeal…

Source excerpt

• Consent Judgment
• Notice Of Appeal
• Service Out Of Time
• Appeal Incompetence

The Executrix of the Estate of The Late Namatovu v Noel Grace Shalita Stananzi

The Executrix of the Estate of The Late Namatovu v Noel Grace Shalita Stananzi [1988] UGSC 3 (4 November 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Judge

Odoki, CJ

The Supreme Court of Uganda granted an extension of time to file an appeal after a missing decree and related filing errors were traced to counsel and court mistakes.

• Extension Of Time
• Record Of Appeal
• Decree Extraction
• Appeal Incompetence
• Mistake Of Counsel
• Extension-of-time