Kamari John v Hakiza Elis (Miscellaneous Application 38 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 578 · 2026 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to enlarge time to file appeal out of time, arising from Land Claim No. 015 of 2023 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 052 of 2025

Decision

Application granted; applicant given leave to file appeal out of time within 7 days.

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 High Court granted the application to enlarge time to file an appeal out of time under Civil Procedure Act s.79(1)(b). The court held that the applicant demonstrated good cause by showing he had mistakenly filed an application for review in the lower court rather than appealing or applying to admit additional evidence on appeal. The procedural error constituted sufficient reason related to inability to take the necessary step within the prescribed time, and the application was brought without inordinate delay.

Facts

Judgment was delivered against the applicant in Land Claim No. 015 of 2023 on September 9, 2024. The applicant then filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2024 on October 10, 2024, seeking review on grounds of fresh evidence. The ruling on that application was delivered on May 30, 2025, dismissing the review. The applicant filed a memorandum of appeal on August 11, 2025, which was struck out by the High Court on November 25, 2025 as being out of time. The court advised the applicant to file the correct application to reinstate the appeal. The applicant filed this application to enlarge time on December 17, 2025, 21 days after the appeal was struck out.

Issues

Whether there is sufficient cause to grant the applicant leave to appeal out of time.

Orders

The application for leave to file an appeal out of time is granted.
The memorandum of appeal should be filed and served on the respondent 7 days from the date of this order.
No order is made as to costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Correct Legal Basis

An application to enlarge time within which to appeal invokes the appellate court's jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Act s.79(1)(b) rather than s.96, which deals with general enlargement of time for procedural steps.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Test for Good Cause

Good cause under Civil Procedure Act s.79(1)(b) is a legally sufficient reason for favourable action from court and is analogous to sufficient cause. What constitutes good cause is not a fixed standard but depends on the unique facts and circumstances of each case, with the court's discretion playing a crucial role in determining its adequacy.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Factors for Exercise of Discretion

In determining whether to grant an extension of time to appeal, the court considers: (a) whether the applicant shows sufficient reason related to inability or failure to take the necessary step within the prescribed time; (b) that the administration of justice requires that disputes be investigated and decided on the merits and that errors and lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from pursuing his rights; and (c) that mistakes of counsel may amount to sufficient reason only if they amount to an error of judgment but not inordinate delay or negligence to observe plain requirements of law.

Civil Procedure — Review — Distinction from Appeal and Additional Evidence

An application for review under Civil Procedure Act s.82 cannot be a licence to re-hear the merits of a suit. Review is limited to correcting errors on the face of the record. Where a party discovers fresh evidence after judgment, the correct remedy is to apply to admit additional evidence on appeal under s.80(1)(d), not to seek review in the lower court.

Civil Procedure — Review — Standard for Error on Face of Record

For a review to succeed on the ground of error on the face of the record, the error must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such error to remain on the record.

Legislation cited (9)

Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 71-1, Order 51 Rule 6
Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282, s.98
Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282, s.79(1)
Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282, s.79(1)(a)
Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282, s.79(1)(b)
Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282, s.96
Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282, s.80(1)(d)
Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282, s.82
Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282, s.83

Cases cited (8)

Rosette Kizito v Administrator General & Others (Supreme Court Appeal No. 9 of 1996)
Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
Makumbi v Mugimba (Miscellaneous Application No. 49 of 2024)
Kwitegese Bernard & Another v Tumwizere Frank (Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2025)
Saeh Mugadya v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 1056 of 2025)
Tiberio Okeny & Another v Attorney General & 2 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)
F X Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
Secondina Twijukye & Others v Tebawetu Fabian (Miscellaneous Application No. 060 of 2024)

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.