Isharaza v Beyunga (HCT-05-CV-CA-005-2004)
Isharaza v Beyunga (HCT-05-CV-CA-005-2004) [2004] UGHC 76 (7 October 2004)
The court found that the memorandum of appeal was defective as it did not set out the grounds of objection concisely and under distinct heads as required by Order 39 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The appellant attempted to argue grounds not apparent in the memorandum without seeking leave of court, contrary to Order 39 rule 2. The court relied on the precedent in Moro Okolla vs John Lalobo [1979] HCB 54, which held that a memorandum of appeal not complying with the rules is incurably defective and must be rejected. Consequently, the appeal was struck out with costs.
Source excerpt
- Memorandum Of Appeal Requirements
- Grounds Of Appeal
- Leave Of Court
- Striking Out Defective Pleadings