Wakilii

Lukozi v Simba Telecom Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 235 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 2063 · 2020 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of Appeal for extension of time to re-file and serve a Notice of Appeal
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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The single Justice dismissed an application for extension of time to re-file and serve a withdrawn Notice of Appeal. The applicant claimed his former lawyers had negligently advised him to withdraw the notice and instead pursue an application that proved res judicata. The Court held that mistakes of counsel are only excused where excusable, and a mere mistake as to the law affords no excuse. The Notice of Appeal had been withdrawn, and the alternative application filed and prosecuted, with the applicant's own instructions, knowledge and participation. Allowing the applicant to revert to the abandoned appeal after losing on the merits in the alternative application was an abuse of court process. No sufficient reason was shown.

Facts

The applicant had filed High Court Commercial Division Civil Suit No. 72 of 2015 against the respondents claiming damages for breach of a contract for the sale of property known as Platinum House. The High Court ordered the applicant to deposit UGX 100,000,000 as security for costs, which he failed to provide, and the suit was dismissed. Several subsequent applications to set aside the dismissal failed. The applicant lodged a Notice of Appeal on 02.10.2017 against the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 426 of 2017, but his then lawyers withdrew it on 30.01.2018 and instead filed Miscellaneous Application No. 60 of 2018, which the High Court dismissed as res judicata. The applicant later re-filed a Notice of Appeal and sought extension of time to validate and serve it, contending that his former counsel's negligent advice should not be visited upon him.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established sufficient reason under Rule 5 to extend time to re-file and serve a withdrawn Notice of Appeal.
  2. Whether the conduct of the applicant's former counsel constituted an excusable mistake of counsel that should not be visited upon the applicant.
  3. Whether granting the application would amount to permitting an abuse of court process.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason under Rule 5
An extension of time under Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules will be granted only where the applicant establishes sufficient reason for failing to act within the time prescribed, in the exercise of the Court's unfettered judicial discretion.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — Requirement that the Mistake be Excusable
Although mistakes of counsel should not be visited upon a client so as to deny the right to appeal, the Court must first be satisfied that the mistake or inadvertence was excusable; a mistake as to the provisions of the law affords no excuse, since everyone is presumed to know the law.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — Acts Done with Client's Instructions and Participation
Where a step is taken by counsel on the express instructions, knowledge and participation of the client, the client cannot later disown it as a mistake of counsel; counsel advising a client on a matter that the court subsequently decides against the client is not a mistake of counsel.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Court Process — Reverting to Abandoned Appeal
A court will not exercise its discretion to assist a party committing an abuse of process; reverting to a withdrawn Notice of Appeal after deliberately pursuing and losing an alternative application on the merits constitutes an abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.5
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.43
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.44
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.26 r.2(1)

Cases cited (5)

  • James Bwogi and Another v Kampala City Council and Another (Civil Application No. 9 of 2017)
  • Boney M. Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
  • Horizon Coaches Ltd v Edward Rurangaranga and Another (Civil Application No. 18 of 2009)
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Limited v N Shah & Company Limited (Civil Application No. 20 of 2010)
  • Tropical Africa Bank Limited v Grace Were Muhwana (Civil Application No. 3 of 2012)
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.