Wakilii

Eric Tibebaga v Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and Ors (Civil Application 18 of 2002)

Supreme Court · [2003] UGSC 14 · 2003 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for extension of time within which to file written submissions
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs to the respondents

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 Court held that rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996, not section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, governs an application for extension of time, because section 1(2) of the Act confines it to the High Court and subordinate courts; rule 4 places a burden on the applicant to show sufficient reason for delay. The supporting and rejoinder affidavits, sworn by counsel about the conduct of his clerk who had personal knowledge of the facts, were hearsay contrary to rule 42(1) and could not be cured by stating the source. They were also riddled with falsehood, being contradicted by an affidavit of another advocate in the same firm. With no valid affidavit, sufficient reason was not established and the application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

On 21 October 2002 the Supreme Court ordered the applicant to file written submissions in reply by 31 October 2002 in his pending appeal. The applicant failed to file within that time. He applied for an extension, contending that the fault lay with his counsel's process server, Silver Ahimbisibwe, who was said to have travelled to Kabaale to serve summons in a separate suit, HCCS No. 594 of 2002, delayed there, and returned to the Supreme Court Registry only on 1 November 2002, after time had expired. The application was supported by affidavits of counsel, Mr. Makeera. The respondents opposed it, relying on an affidavit of Nakato Maureen, an advocate in the same firm, who deposed that she had personally served the relevant defendant in Kampala on 31 October 2002 at 3.30 p.m., contradicting the clerk's claimed service in Kabaale. The clerk who allegedly knew the reasons for the delay swore no affidavit.

Issues

  1. Whether an application for extension of time to file written submissions in the Supreme Court is governed by section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act or by rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996.
  2. Whether the affidavits sworn in support of and in rejoinder to the application were incurably defective for containing falsehood.
  3. Whether those affidavits were defective as hearsay and therefore failed to comply with rule 42(1) of the Supreme Court Rules.
  4. Whether the applicant established sufficient reason for the delay within the meaning of rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Orders

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

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Applicable Law in the Supreme Court
An application for extension of time to take a step in a Supreme Court appeal is governed by rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996, not by section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, because section 1(2) of the Act extends it only to the High Court and subordinate and magistrates' courts.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Burden to Show Sufficient Reason
Under rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996 the burden lies on the applicant to give sufficient reason explaining the delay, and an extension cannot be granted where no such reason is validly established.
Evidence — Affidavits — Hearsay — Rule 42(1) Supreme Court Rules
An affidavit supporting a formal application must, under rule 42(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, be sworn by a person with knowledge of the facts; where the deponent merely relays what another person who has the actual knowledge did or failed to do, the affidavit is hearsay and is not cured by stating the source of the information.
Evidence — Affidavits — Falsehood — Validity
An affidavit shown to contain falsehood, particularly where it is contradicted by the affidavit of a witness from the deponent's own side, is defective and cannot validly support an application.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.99
  • Civil Procedure Act s.1(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.4
  • Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.1(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.41(1)(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.42(1)
  • Judicature Statute 1996 s.49(a)
  • Evidence Act s.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 r.3(1)
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.