Uganda Case Law

Patel v Seth

Patel v Seth (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1951) [1952] EACA 34 (1 January 1952)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1951

Judge

Hearne CJ, Nihill P, Worley VP

The Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'an order made in pursuance of this rule' in Order 6, rule 29, Civil Procedure Rules, is limited to orders made in exercise of the powers conferred by the rule and granting relief, such as striking out a pleading or dismissing a suit. An order refusing to grant such relief, i.e., dismissing an application to strike out a plaint, is not an order made in pursuance of the rule and is not appealable as of right. Therefore, an appeal from such an order requires leave of court. The preliminary objection was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed as not properl…

Source excerpt

• Appeal Rights
• Striking Out Pleadings
• Leave To Appeal
• Interpretation Of Rules

Gokaldas v Kanji (C.A. 25/1933.)

Gokaldas v Kanji (C.A. 25/1933.) [1937] EACA 10 (1 January 1937)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.A. 25/1933.

Judge

Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Horne J, Sheridan CJ

The Court of Appeal held that, under Order XIX rule 19, notice to show cause must be issued before attachment when execution is sought more than one year after decree.

• Execution Of Decrees
• Notice To Show Cause
• Attachment And Sale
• Interpretation Of Rules
• Civil-procedure
• Execution-of-decrees