Wakilii

Charles Kangamiteto v Uganda (Cr. App. No.1 of 1978)

Court of Appeal · [1978] UGCA 11 · 1978 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time in an intended criminal appeal from the High Court
Decision
Application for extension of time to file notice of appeal out of time dismissed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time, lodged almost twenty-two months after expiry of the 14-day period. The court held that under r.4 of the Appeal Rules an extension may only be granted for sufficient reason relating to the inability to take the step in time. The applicant's claim that he lacked money was rejected because no fee is payable for filing a notice of appeal. Inordinate, unexplained delay in counsel's chambers amounted to mere lack of diligence rather than an excusable mistake. As no sufficient reason was shown, the question of prejudice or prospects of success did not arise.

Facts

The applicant was tried by the High Court at Masindi for murder and on 16 June 1976 was convicted of the lesser offence of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. The notice of appeal was required to be filed within 14 days. The applicant lodged the application for extension of time on 26 April 1978, almost twenty-two months out of time. He deposed that he was prevented from appealing in time because his father, the only person able to fund the appeal and instruct counsel, was himself arrested and detained on an overcharging allegation within a week of the request and was not acquitted until September 1977. Counsel was instructed in October 1977 and wrote to the Chief Registrar on 18 November 1977 seeking copies of the proceedings and judgment. The supporting affidavits were sworn on 20 December 1977, but the application was not filed until 26 April 1978, a further delay of about four months attributed to counsel's chambers.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient reason under r.4 of the Appeal Rules to justify extending time to file a notice of appeal almost twenty-two months out of time.
  2. Whether lack of money or inordinate delay in counsel's chambers constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time dismissed.

Key headnotes

Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason — Appeal Rules r.4
The power to extend time under r.4 of the Appeal Rules may only be exercised for sufficient reason relating to the inability or failure to take the particular step in time, and the burden lies on the applicant to satisfy the court that for sufficient reason it was not possible to lodge the appeal within the prescribed period.
Notice of Appeal — No Fee Payable — Lack of Funds Not Sufficient Reason
A convicted person's lack of money is not a sufficient reason for failing to file a notice of appeal in time, since no fee is payable for filing a notice of appeal and the prison authorities will file the necessary documents on the appellant's behalf upon being informed of an intention to appeal.
Extension of Time — Delay by Counsel — Mistake versus Inordinate Delay
While a mistake of a legal adviser may amount to sufficient cause for extension of time, simple, clear and unexplained inordinate delay in counsel's chambers springing from lack of diligence, rather than from any misunderstanding of the rules, is inexcusable and does not constitute sufficient reason.
Extension of Time — Order of Considerations — Prejudice and Prospects of Success
The prospects of success of the intended appeal and the question of prejudice to the opposing party are only considered after sufficient reason for the delay has been established; absent sufficient reason, these factors do not arise.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Appeal Rules r.4
  • Appeal Rules r.58
  • Appeal Rules r.102(a)

Cases cited (7)

  • Mugo v. Wanjiru, (1970) E.A.481, 485
  • R. v. Brown s/o Mbetwa, (1948) 15 E.A.C.A. 138
  • Shanti v. Hindocha & Others, (1973) E.A.207
  • Shah H. Bharmal v. Santesh Kamuri, (1961) E.A. 679
  • Gatti v Shoosmith, (1939) 3 ALL E.R. 916
  • Mrs. Nyambura Kisoi v Wanjiku E.A.C.A. Civil Application No. NAI.7 of 1976
  • Bhatt's case (1962) 49T
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.