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

Court of Appeal · [2004] UGCA 28 · 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

Decision

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs

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 single judge dismissed an application for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal. Under rule 41(1) of the Court's rules, an application must first be made and refused in the High Court before being brought to the Court of Appeal, save in exceptional circumstances, none of which were shown. The applicants also failed to demonstrate sufficient reason under rule 4 for the delay: no travel documents proved the first applicant's absence abroad, and the company applicant, a separate legal entity, could have instructed counsel. Their failure to attach the impugned judgment supported an inference the intended appeal lacked merit. 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 applied to the Court of Appeal for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal, contending 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. The application was supported by affidavits of the first applicant and his counsel, but no travel documents or copy of the High Court judgment were attached. The respondent's affidavit in reply denied the applicant was in Kigali, stated he was served only on 7 January 2004 (nine months after filing in April 2003), and contended the applicants were using delaying tactics. The respondent attached documentary evidence showing the applicants had been advanced shs.39,900,000, failed to pay as agreed in writing, and issued three cheques in settlement that all bounced, with the debt outstanding.

Issues

Whether the applicants had first made the application for extension of time in the High Court as required before approaching the Court of Appeal.
Whether the applicants had shown sufficient reason for failing to file a notice of appeal in time.
Whether the applicants had demonstrated that the intended appeal had merit.

Orders

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

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

Under rule 41(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal, an application of this nature must first be made and refused in the High Court before being brought to the Court of Appeal; the Court of Appeal will entertain such an application at first instance only in very exceptional circumstances.

Appeals — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason under Rule 4

An applicant seeking extension of time to file a notice of appeal must produce sufficient reason for the delay; unsupported assertions, such as absence abroad unaccompanied by travel documents, do not satisfy this requirement.

Appeals — Extension of Time — Merits of Intended Appeal

While showing merit in the intended appeal is not a mandatory requirement for extension of time, an applicant fails to do so at his peril; failure to attach the impugned judgment may support an inference that the intended appeal lacks merit.

Corporate Personality — Company as a Separate Legal Entity

A limited liability company is a separate legal entity from its sole shareholder and may instruct counsel and act independently; the absence abroad of the controlling individual does not excuse the company's failure to take procedural steps.

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.