Kironde and Another v Balintuma (Misc Cause 35 of 2003)

Court of Appeal · [2004] UGCA 26 · 2004 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application by notice of motion for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal against a High Court decree

Decision

Application for extension of time 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 dismissed an application for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal. The single judge held that under rule 41(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, such an application must first be made in and refused by the High Court, save in exceptional circumstances which were not shown. The applicants also failed to establish sufficient reason under rule 4, as they produced no proof the first applicant was abroad, and their conduct showed delaying tactics. They further failed to show the intended appeal had merit, having omitted to attach the judgment appealed from. The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

Judgment was entered against the applicants in the High Court on 24 February 2003 for a liquidated decretal sum of shs.39,900,000. The applicants sought extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal, claiming the first applicant was in Kigali, Rwanda when judgment was delivered and could not instruct counsel, and that the intended appeal had a high chance of success. No travel documents proving the first applicant's whereabouts and no copy of the impugned judgment were attached. The respondent contested the application, stating he was only served in January 2004, nine months after the application was filed in April 2003, and that the applicants had used delaying tactics to defeat his claim. The debt arose from monies advanced which the applicants failed to repay, and three cheques issued in settlement bounced.

Issues

Whether the application for extension of time could be entertained by the Court of Appeal when it had not first been made in and refused by the High Court under rule 41(1).
Whether the applicants showed sufficient reason under rule 4 for their failure to file a notice of appeal in time.
Whether the applicants demonstrated that the intended appeal had merit.

Orders

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Requirement to First Apply in the High Court

Under rule 41(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, an application that may be made first in the High Court must be so made and refused there before the Court of Appeal can entertain it; this requirement is mandatory and only exceptional circumstances justify the Court of Appeal entertaining such an application in the first instance.

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

An applicant seeking extension of time to file a notice of appeal must demonstrate sufficient reason under rule 4 for the delay; unsubstantiated assertions, absence of supporting documentary proof, and conduct revealing delaying tactics will defeat the claim of sufficient reason.

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Relevance of Merits of Intended Appeal

While showing merit in the intended appeal is not a mandatory requirement for extension of time, an applicant who fails to demonstrate any prospect of success does so at his peril, and failure to attach the judgment intended to be appealed may support an inference that the appeal lacks merit.

Legislation cited (3)

Rules of the Court of Appeal r.41(1)
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.41(2)
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.4

Cases cited (2)

Grindlays Bank vs. Katende and Brothers [1980] HCB 10
Shanti vs Hindocha & Others 1973 E.A. 207

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.