I have further noted that none of the parties addressed the Registrar or the court specifically on
the implications of registration of the Appellant in Kenya prior to its application in Uganda. I
have considered the evidence of the registration of the Appellant in Kenya and it is not necessary
to consider whether the Appellant is registrable on account of the earlier registration in Uganda
of the Respondent if this issue was considered. Secondly the legal provisions for consideration of
registration would have been slightly different. As earlier on held the principles to be applied in
an appeal are well established.
I will again cite Order 43 rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules which permits the court on the
basis of exhaustive evaluation of evidence to reconsider the decision of the lower tribunal or
court on a new basis. Order 43 rule 20 provides that:
"Where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the High Court to pronounce
judgment, the High Court may, after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine
the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the court from whose decree the appeal is
preferred has proceeded only upon some ground other than that on which the High Court
proceeds.
In other words the court can decide the appeal on some other ground and issue provided it is
supported by the evidence. These principles were earlier referred to from the judicial precedents
of Ephraim versus Francis SCCA No. 10 of 1987, Selle and another v Associated Motor
Boat Company Ltd and others [1968] 1 EA 123, Peters v Sunday Post Limited [1958] 1 EA
424 as well as the English authorities in King versus Thompson [1914] 2 KB 99, John Harris
(1910) Criminal Appeal Cases page 285 and William Robert Powell (1921) Criminal Appeal
Cases, 23. The principles are that the duty of the first appellate court is to re – consider and
evaluate the evidence, and come to its own conclusions. In Selle and another v Associated
Motor Boat Company Ltd and others [1968] 1 EA 123 it was held that the Appellate Court
must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it by itself and draw its own conclusions. The first
Appellate Court is not bound ―necessarily to follow the trial judge‘s findings of fact if it appears
either that he has clearly failed on some point to take account of particular circumstances or
probabilities materially to estimate the evidence.‖ It is my holding that the Registrar did not take
into account the prior registration in Kenya of the Appellant yet it was the most material matter