Attorney General v Oriental Construction Co. Limited (Civil Application 19 of 1990)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Holding

The Full Bench of the Supreme Court allowed a reference from Platt, J.S.C.'s refusal to extend time for the Attorney General to lodge an appeal against a large foreign-currency judgment. The Court agreed that no sufficient explanation had been given for the roughly fourteen-month delay, as neither bad faith nor lack of authority on the part of the State Attorney was established. However, it held that the single Justice had failed to consider that the appeal raised a matter of public importance — a substantial foreign-currency award against the Government on an obligation inherited from the defunct East African Community. On that ground time was extended, conditional on the applicant bearing the costs.

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment against the Government in High Court Civil Suit No. 491 of 1988 for money due under a contract for work done, the court awarding 77 million Kenya shillings or USD 4 million. The contract had been entered into by or on behalf of the former East African Community, whose assets and liabilities the Uganda Government inherited. The suit was conducted for the applicant by State Attorney Byamugisha, who admitted liability, contested only quantum, and failed to inform the applicant of the judgment or of the later refusal of his review applications. Notice of appeal, due within fourteen days under Rule 74(2), was not filed for approximately fourteen months. The respondent's advocates had written demanding payment and noting that no appeal had been lodged. The applicant sought an extension of time, attributing the delay to the State Attorney's conduct. Platt, J.S.C. refused the application, and the applicant referred the matter to the Full Bench.

Issues

1. Whether a sufficient explanation had been given for the approximately fourteen-month delay in taking the steps necessary to lodge the appeal.
2. Whether the intended appeal raised a matter of public importance such as to justify an extension of time to lodge it.

Orders

• The order dismissing the application is set aside.
• The application is allowed.
• The time for filing the notice of appeal is extended until seven days from the date of this Ruling.
• The costs of the present application before the Court and before Platt, J.S.C. are to be borne by the applicant.

Key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.74(2)

Cases cited (1)

• Esso Standard Eastern Inc v Income Tax (1971) EA 140