Charles Mayambal v U.C.B (Civil Misc Application No. 15 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1997] UGCA 9 · 1997 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996

Decision

Application for extension of time granted; applicant to lodge notice of appeal within 7 days

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 granted an application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time. The applicant's counsel had erroneously filed the notice of appeal in the Supreme Court rather than the Court of Appeal, and it was dismissed for being lodged in the wrong court. The court held that the applicant was not himself at fault and should not suffer for his counsel's mistake. Following Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers v Connie Kabanda, the mistake of counsel was excusable and amounted to sufficient reason within the meaning of rule 4. The applicant was permitted to lodge his notice of appeal within seven days.

Facts

The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 1981 in the High Court, which was disposed of on 9 January 1992. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the applicant instructed his lawyers, Sendege & Co. Advocates, to file a notice of appeal. Counsel filed the notice of appeal in the Supreme Court and paid the necessary fees. The notice of appeal was dismissed on the ground that it had been lodged in the wrong court, as it should have been lodged in the Court of Appeal. The applicant then brought this application for enlargement of time to enable him to file his notice of appeal out of time in order to appeal against the High Court decision. The applicant maintained that he genuinely believed his counsel had taken the proper course to institute his appeal in time and should not be punished for his lawyer's mistake.

Issues

Whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996 to warrant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time.
Whether the mistake of counsel in filing the notice of appeal in the wrong court constituted sufficient reason for extension of time.

Orders

Application granted.
Applicant permitted to file his notice of appeal out of time.
Notice of appeal to be lodged within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason under Court of Appeal Rules r.4

An applicant who was not personally at fault, but whose counsel erroneously filed a notice of appeal in the wrong court, has shown sufficient reason within the meaning of rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996 to warrant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time.

Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — Whether Litigant Should Suffer

A litigant should not be made to suffer for the wrong-doing or mistake of his counsel where the litigant himself was not at fault, and such a mistake may be excusable so as to justify the grant of an extension of time.

Legislation cited (2)

Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.4
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.55(2)

Cases cited (1)

Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers v Connie Kabanda (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1992)

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.