Roy Busuulwa Nsereko and Another v Imelda N. Nakedde (Civil Application No. 5 of 2000)
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 allowed an application for extension of time to file an appeal under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996. The applicants instructed counsel to appeal as soon as they learned of the judgment, but counsel mistakenly filed a notice of appeal out of time and delayed in bringing the application. The court held that errors and lapses of counsel, over whom a vigilant litigant has no control, should not deter the litigant from pursuing an appeal. A client is entitled to rely on counsel to carry out instructions, and an intending appellant—especially one residing outside the country—cannot be expected to monitor every step counsel takes. The delay was the fault of counsel, not the applicants.
Facts
The respondent sued the two applicants for recovery of land in High Court Civil Suit No. 1074 of 1995. The first applicant, who lives in London, was represented at trial by an advocate who died in 1997 or 1998; the second applicant was unrepresented. Judgment was to be delivered on notice but notice was served on an advocate in the former counsel's chambers rather than on the applicants. Judgment was delivered on 25 August 1999 in the absence of both applicants. The applicants learned of the judgment on 14 September 1999 and immediately instructed present counsel, who filed a notice of appeal in the High Court that same day. The notice of appeal was filed five days out of time. Counsel later realised this and filed the present application to appeal out of time, brought approximately 150 days after the applicants learned of the judgment.
Issues
- Whether the applicants had shown sufficient reason under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996 to justify an extension of time within which to file an appeal.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- The applicants are to take the necessary steps to file their appeal within 21 days from the date of this ruling.
- Costs of this application to abide the result of the appeal.
Key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 4
Cases cited (6)
- Clouds 10 Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1992)
- Regina Kabatabazi v Paul Muwanga (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
- Mugo v Wanjiru [1970] EA 481
- Bhatt v Tejwant Singh [1962] EA 497
- Haji Mudin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 21 of 1991)
- Mary Kyamulabi v Ahamad Zirondum 1981 HCB