Wakilii

Eridadi Tito Nsubuga and Another v Attorney General (Civil Application 58 of 1998)

Court of Appeal · [1999] UGCA 85 · 1999 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time within which to serve a notice of appeal, arising from an intended appeal against a High Court judgment.
Decision
Application for extension of time allowed; applicant granted seven days to serve the notice of appeal and thirty days to file the record of appeal.

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 held that the applicants had shown sufficient reason for an extension of time to serve their notice of appeal. Finding that the document was filed on 9th November 1998 (the date filing fees were paid), the court applied the rule that a document is not properly filed until fees are paid, and accepted the unrebutted affidavit of the applicant's clerk. Where delay is entirely attributable to the court registry, that constitutes sufficient reason for extension. The application was allowed and time extended for service of the notice of appeal and filing of the record.

Facts

The applicants lost High Court Civil Suit No. 702 of 1995, the judgment being delivered on 27th October 1998. They instructed counsel to appeal, and the clerk to counsel, Harriet Nanyonjo, filed a notice of appeal in the High Court Civil registry, paying filing fees of UGX 3,000 on 9th November 1998. The signed and sealed notice was not returned by the Registrar's chambers until 19th November 1998, by which time the seven-day period for service on the respondent had expired. The notice was served on the respondent that same day. The respondent contended the notice was lodged on 11th November 1998, relying on a High Court stamp on the notice bearing that date, and asserted from the bar that the clerk's affidavit was false. The respondent filed no affidavit in reply. The notice bore two High Court stamps: one dated 11th November and a receipt stamp dated 9th November for the fees paid.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants had shown sufficient reason for extension of time within which to serve the notice of appeal.
  2. Whether the notice of appeal was filed on 9th November 1998 or on 11th November 1998.
  3. Whether delay attributable entirely to the court registry constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant to serve the notice of appeal within seven days from today.
  • Memorandum of appeal and record of appeal to be filed and served within thirty days from today.
  • Costs to be in the cause.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason — Delay Attributable to Court Registry
Where delay in taking a procedural step is entirely attributable to the court registry, and not to the applicant or counsel, this constitutes sufficient reason for granting an extension of time.
Civil Procedure — Filing of Documents — Effective Date of Filing — Payment of Fees
A document is not properly filed in court until the filing fees have been paid or the advocate maintains a general deposit in court for that purpose; accordingly the effective date of filing is the date fees are paid.
Evidence — Affidavits — Unrebutted Averments — Presumption of Truth
Where facts sworn to in an affidavit are not denied or rebutted by the opposite party, the presumption is that such facts are accepted as true; an assertion from the bar that an affidavit is false cannot displace this presumption.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.4
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.42
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.43
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.75(1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Mugo & others v Wanjiru & Another [1970] E.A. 481
  • Shanti v Hindocha and others [1973] 207
  • Isaac Bishari v Vita Foam S.C. Civil App. No. 2/94 (unreported)
  • Unta Export Ltd v Customs [1970] EA 648
  • Massa v Ochen 1978 HCB. 297
  • Balwantrai D. Bhatt v Tejwant Singh & Another [1962] E.A. 497
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.