The Court of appeal holds that the absence of a decree on court records does not invalidate an appeal

Post Bank (U) Limited Vs William Barigye (Civil Appeal No. 301 of 2018) [2023] UGCA 62

Attention!

A decree is an abridged version of a judgment. An Appellate Court should be concerned with having before it a judgment where it can carefully study the trial Court’s findings and the reasons for the findings, than just a summary of the same. Therefore, lack of a decree does not invalidate an appeal.

Background to the case.

The Respondent filed Civil Suit No.1386 of 2016 against the Appellant. He sought for UGX 15, 362, 412 being money paid by the appellant negligently and by mistake of fact from the Director of Citizenship and Immigration Control Office meant for the Respondent, interest of 24%, general & exemplary damages for negligence, declarations that the respondent is entitled to a refund of the money and costs.

The Respondent argued that he had never operated an account with the appellant but there was a different person with the name “William Baligye” that operated an account with the respondent and it is through this person’s account that the said monies meant for the Respondent were paid.  The suit was decided in favour of the Respondent ordering the Appellant to refund the UGX 15, 362, 412, pay interest thereon of 24% per annum, pay general damages of UGX 10, 000,000, exemplary damages of UGX 5, 000,000 and costs of the suit.

The Appellant appealed to the High Court; Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was filed out of time. The High Court upheld the objection and dismissed the appeal. The Appellant being dissatisfied, appealed to the Court of Appeal on two grounds and the Respondent cross appealed on one ground. Three grounds of appeal were considered in deciding the Appeal:

1. The learned Judge erred in law when she struck out the High Court Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2017 on grounds that it was filed out of time.
2. The learned Judge erred in law when she failed/omitted to consider any of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal

The learned appellate Judge erred in law when she failed to strike out the appellant’s appeal for lack of extraction of a decree first.

The Ruling of the Court

The Court of Appeal, in upholding the Appeal on all grounds, stated as follows:

1. The Memorandum of Appeal was filed on Monday because the 30 days in which it should have been filed expired on a Sunday. It therefore followed that the Appeal was filed in time; pursuant to Section 34 of the Interpretation Act and Order 51 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 respectively.
2. Had the first Appellate Judge rightly applied the law relating to computation of time, she would have heard the Appeal on its merits. It was thus that the Appeal would be remitted to the High Court and heard on its merits.
3. A decree is an abridged version of the Judgment. An Appellate court should therefore be concerned with having before it a judgment where it can carefully study the trial court’s findings and the reasons for the findings, than just a summary of the same. An appeal by its very nature is against the judgment on a reasoned order. In the premises, lack of a decree on record is a mere technicality.

Effect of the Court’s ruling

Most pertinent in the ruling is the Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the absence of a decree on record. In creating a nexus between the definition of “Decree” and “Judgment” respectively as defined under Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court has in essence barred the dismissal of an appeal on the technicality of the absence of a decree. The Court further buttressed and explained the “computation of time” principle and settled any doubt as to its actual interpretation.

Concluding Observations

It is critical that appeals are handled on merit and all substantive issues addressed. The ruling by the Court of Appeal is therefore a welcome breathe of relief to aggrieved litigants who have continuously been denied justice because of technicalities such as those addressed in this alert.  We can only hope that all Courts moving forward, adopt this disregard to technicalities so Justice is actually seen to be done.

Disclaimer: No information contained in this alert should be construed as legal advice from Namara Musinguzi & Co. Advocates or the individual authors, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter

Prepared By:

Ann Namara Musinguzi (Managing Partner)

ann@namaralaw.com

Ainomugisha Anita ( Legal Associate)

anita@namaralaw.com