Uganda Commercial Bank v Severio Oryeda (Civil Application 3 of 1986)
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
On an application for extension of time to lodge an appeal, the court held that where the delay is attributable entirely to the court's failure to supply the requested copy of the proceedings, that constitutes 'sufficient reason' under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant had filed a notice of appeal in time and repeatedly requested the proceedings, which were not provided. The court further held that the application was properly brought under Rule 4 (extension of time) rather than Rule 81, and that an affidavit need not establish that the appeal is likely to succeed, since 'sufficient reason' relates to the inability to take the step in time. Extension granted; costs to abide the result of the appeal.
Facts
The applicant, Uganda Commercial Bank, was the unsuccessful party in a High Court civil suit decided by Kato, J. on 24 March 1986. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 4 April 1986 and, on 6 May 1986, wrote to the Deputy Chief Registrar requesting a copy of the proceedings to prepare the record of appeal, but received only the judgment. A further request was made on 8 July 1986. By the time of the hearing of this application, the proceedings had still not been supplied. The applicant accordingly sought an extension of time to lodge the appeal. A concurrent application for stay of execution was abandoned because the decretal sum of Shs. 2,798,973/40 had already been paid to the respondent.
Issues
- Whether the applicant showed sufficient reason for an extension of time to lodge an appeal where the delay was attributable to the court's failure to supply a copy of the proceedings.
- Whether the application was properly brought under Rule 4 rather than Rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
- Whether an affidavit in support must address the prospects of the appeal succeeding for the court to grant an extension of time.
Orders
- Leave granted to file the appeal outside the prescribed time, within thirty days from the date of the ruling.
- Costs to abide the result of the appeal.
Key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Court of Appeal Rules r.4
- Court of Appeal Rules r.81
- East African Court of Appeal Rules 1954 r.9
Cases cited (4)
- National Pharmacy Ltd v Kampala City Council (Civil Application No. 6 of 1979)
- Mugo & Others v Wanjiru and Another (1970) EA 481
- Shah v Jamnadas (1959) EA 838
- Shatt V. Tejwant Singh (1962) E.A. 497