Titus Kidega Lak v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Application No. 14 of 2000)

Court of Appeal · [2000] UGCA 52 · 2000 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application before a single Justice of Appeal for leave to file an appeal out of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Decision

Leave to file appeal out of time granted; applicant to file appeal within 14 days

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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The applicant sought leave to file an appeal out of time after his counsel filed an incompetent appeal which was later withdrawn. The court held that 'sufficient reason' under Rule 4 depends on the circumstances of each case and must relate to the failure to take the step in time. Citing authorities, the court found that a mistake of counsel may constitute sufficient reason and should not be visited on the litigant where the litigant acted diligently and instructed counsel to appeal on time. As the applicant was not to blame for his counsel's blunder, the application was granted, allowing him 14 days to file his appeal.

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1999 before the Court of Appeal, challenging a High Court decision dated 18 June 1999 concerning Civil Appeals Nos. 899, 901, 902, 903, 904 and 905 of 1998. On 10 March 2000, the applicant's counsel withdrew that appeal after the court discovered it was incompetent, being based on a point that was mere obiter dictum. Having withdrawn the appeal, the applicant sought leave to file a fresh appeal out of time. He contended that the delay was caused by the mistake of his counsel, who had filed the earlier appeal and later withdrew it, and that such a mistake should not be visited on the litigant. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that no sufficient cause had been shown and that the applicant could have pursued the issue of costs without withdrawing the appeal.

Issues

Whether the mistake of the applicant's counsel in filing and withdrawing an incompetent appeal constituted sufficient reason to grant leave to file an appeal out of time under Rule 4.

Orders

The application for extension of time is granted.
The applicant is to file his appeal within 14 days from the day this ruling is delivered.
Costs of this application are awarded to the respondent in any event.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason under Rule 4

An applicant seeking extension of time under Rule 4 must prove to the satisfaction of the court that there was sufficient reason for failing to file the appeal in time; sufficient reason depends on the circumstances of each case and must relate to the inability or failure to take the particular step in time.

Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — Whether Visited on Litigant

The mistake of counsel may provide sufficient reason for extending the time within which to file an appeal, and should not be visited on the litigant where the litigant acted diligently and instructed counsel to appeal in time.

Legislation cited (1)

Court of Appeal Rules r.4

Cases cited (4)

G.M. Bera v B.A.T. Uganda Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 1998)
Mugo v Wanjiru and Another [1970] EA 481
Mary Kyamulabi v Ahamad Zirondomu
Gatti v Shoosmith [1939] 3 All ER 916

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.