Rwenzori Investment Ltd. v N.P.A.R.T. (Miscellaneous Civil Application 43 97)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 1 · 1998 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application for leave to file and serve a notice of appeal and to institute the appeal out of time under the Court of Appeal Rules.

Decision

Application for extension of time to file and serve notice of appeal and institute appeal dismissed with costs.

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 held that although the applicant had a right of appeal under s.17(3) of the NPART Statute and the application was competent, the applicant failed to show sufficient reason under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules for the delay in instituting the appeal. The applicant was guilty of dilatory conduct by failing to act for almost two months after filing the notice of appeal and by remaining in contact with negligent advocates without instructing them to pursue the appeal. The court further held that the prospect of success of the intended appeal cannot of itself amount to sufficient reason. The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

In 1988 the applicant obtained a loan of UGX 5,067,000 from Uganda Commercial Bank on a USAID line of credit and failed to repay. The respondent claimed UGX 49,968,435. The applicant filed Tribunal Case No. 36 of 1996 challenging the computation. Before the tribunal the dispute was narrowed to computation, and certain figures were agreed on 7th and 9th April 1997. The tribunal's final judgment of 15th April 1997 awarded UGX 30,978,625, apparently ignoring the agreed figures. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 23 April 1997 but never served it on the respondent and took no further steps for 56 days. Successive advocates failed to institute the appeal, one applying instead for review. The applicant later engaged new advocates who filed this motion on 31 October 1997 seeking leave to file and serve a notice of appeal and institute the appeal out of time.

Issues

Whether the applicant had a right of appeal following the decision of the NPART Tribunal of 15th April 1997.
Whether the application for leave to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time was competent and properly before the court.
Whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason for the delay in instituting the intended appeal.
Whether the likelihood of success of the intended appeal could affect the result where sufficient reason for delay had not been shown.

Orders

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Extension of Time — Requirement of Sufficient Reason under Rule 4

The court's discretion to extend time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules only arises after the applicant has established sufficient reason for the delay, and sufficient reason must relate to the inability or failure to take the particular step in time.

Appeals — Negligence of Counsel — Limits Where Applicant Guilty of Dilatory Conduct

An applicant is not entitled to attribute all delay to the negligence of counsel where the applicant himself was guilty of dilatory conduct, including instructing advocates long after the time for taking essential steps had elapsed and failing to exercise vigilance in pursuing the appeal.

Appeals — Prospects of Success Not Sufficient Reason

The fact that an intended appeal appears likely to succeed cannot of itself amount to sufficient reason for extending time; prospects of success are only considered after sufficient reason for the delay has been established.

Appeals — Lapse of Notice of Appeal under Rule 83(a)

Where a party who has lodged a notice of appeal fails to institute the appeal within the appointed time, the notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn and ceases to be valid, so a fresh application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time is competent.

Procedure — Citation of Wrong or Superfluous Rules

An application is not rendered incompetent by the citation of superfluous or irrelevant rules of procedure where the correct rules are also cited and the inclusion of the superfluous rules causes no prejudice to the opposing party.

NPART Statute — Right of Appeal under Section 17(3)

The power of the NPART Tribunal to review its own judgments under section 17(1) of the NPART Statute does not take away a party's right to appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 17(3) within thirty days of the decision.

Legislation cited (18)

Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 4
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 42(1) and (2)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 43(1) and (3)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 45(1)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 48
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 49
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 52(1)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 53(1)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 76
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 83(a)
Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 87
Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute No. 11 of 1994 s.17(1)
Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute No. 11 of 1994 s.17(3)
Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute No. 11 of 1994 s.17(4)
Civil Procedure Act s.69(1)
Civil Procedure Act s.69(2)
Civil Procedure Act s.83
Civil Procedure Rules rule 37(1)

Cases cited (7)

Essaji & Others v Solanki [1968] EA 218
Sipiriya Kyamulesire v Justine Bakanchurika Bagambe (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
Shanti v Hindocha [1973] EA 207
Mugo v Wanjiru [1970] EA
Florence Nabatanzi v Naume Binsobedde (Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
Abdul Aziz Ngema v Mungai Mathayo (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1975)
Attorney General v Madhvani Hudo (Civil Application No. 5 of 1988)

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.