Attorney General v Oriental Construction Company Ltd (Civil Application 19 of 1990)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Holding

On a reference to the Full Bench from a single Justice's refusal to extend time, the Court agreed that no sufficient explanation had been given for a delay of about fourteen months, finding that the conduct of the State Attorney was neither unauthorised nor in bad faith and that ill-timed correspondence urging settlement did not excuse the failure to appeal in time. However, the Court held that the single Justice had failed to address the public importance of the appeal, which involved a large award payable in scarce foreign currency arising from an obligation inherited by Government as a public responsibility. On that ground the Court set aside the dismissal, allowed the application and extended time, on condition the applicant bear the costs.

Facts

The respondent obtained a High Court judgment against the applicant (the defendant) in a suit for money due under a contract for work done, the award being shillings 77 million in Kenya currency or USD 4 million. Notice of appeal under Rule 74(2) should have been given within 14 days of delivery but was not given until after approximately fourteen months. Conduct of the suit had been taken on by State Attorney Byamugisha, who admitted liability without authority, contested only quantum, failed to inform the applicant of the judgment, and filed applications for review rather than appealing. The applicant said correspondence from the Inspector General of Government had urged negotiation for a lower sum. The respondent's advocates had written demanding payment and noting no appeal was lodged. The contract had been entered into by or on behalf of the former East African Community, whose assets and liabilities the Uganda Government inherited.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant gave a sufficient explanation for the delay in taking the steps required to lodge its appeal.
2. Whether the public importance of the intended appeal justified an extension of time to lodge the notice of appeal.

Orders

• Order dismissing the application set aside.
• Application allowed.
• Time for filing the notice of appeal extended until seven days from the date of this Ruling.
• Costs of the present application and of the application before Platt, J.S.C. to be borne by the applicant.

Key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Rules of the Court (Supreme Court) Rule 74(2)

Cases cited (1)

• Esso Standard Eastern Inc v Income Tax (1971) E.A. 140