Magezi and Anor v Rupaleria (Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2003)

Supreme Court · [2004] UGSC 25 · 2004 Reference Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to the full court from the ruling of a single Judge of the Supreme Court declining to grant an application for extension of time

Decision

Reference allowed; single Judge's order of dismissal set aside; Civil Application No. 10 of 2002 remitted for fresh hearing before another single Justice of the Supreme Court

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 a reference from a single Judge who had dismissed an application for extension of time as premature, superfluous and incompetent because an application to strike out the appeal was pending before a full bench, the Supreme Court held that a single Judge has jurisdiction under rules 4 and 49 of the Rules and section 9(1) of the Judicature Statute to extend time. A pending application to strike out an appeal does not bar an application for extension of time, nor does it divest the court of jurisdiction; priority does not depend on which application was filed first. The proper course was to adjourn or decide on the merits, not dismiss. The reference was allowed.

Facts

The applicants had appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 16/2001) against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The appeal had been filed out of time. The respondent applied (Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2002) to strike out the appeal for non-compliance with the rules. The applicants in turn applied (Civil Application No. 10 of 2002) for extension of time within which to file the appeal. When the extension application came before a single Judge, he dismissed it as premature, superfluous and incompetent, holding that as a single Judge he could not hear an application for extension of time while an application to strike out the appeal was still pending before a full bench. Dissatisfied, the applicants referred the matter to the full court.

Issues

Whether a single Judge of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for extension of time when there is a pending application to strike out the appeal before a full bench.

Orders

Reference allowed with costs to the applicants.
The order of the single Judge dismissing the application set aside.
Civil Application No. 10 of 2002 to be fixed for fresh hearing by another single Justice of the Court.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Jurisdiction of a single Judge

A single Judge of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and discretion under rules 4 and 49 of the Rules of the Court and section 9(1) of the Judicature Statute 1996 to grant or refuse an extension of time, and the pendency of an application to strike out an appeal does not divest that jurisdiction.

Civil Procedure — Striking out an appeal — Relationship with an application for extension of time

An application to strike out an appeal does not act as a bar to an application for extension of time; the order in which the two applications are determined does not depend on which was filed first, since a meritorious extension preserves the appeal while an unmeritorious one leaves the striking-out application to be heard.

Civil Procedure — Rules as handmaids of justice — Dismissal versus adjournment

Where a single Judge fears pre-empting the decision of the full court, the proper course is to adjourn the application or decide it on its merits; dismissing it is an error because it hinders the applicant's right to file a fresh application, the rules of procedure being handmaids of justice rather than instruments to defeat it.

Legislation cited (3)

Rules of the Supreme Court rule 4
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 49
Judicature Statute 1996 s.9(1)

Cases cited (4)

Kiboro v Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (1974) EA 155
Hajji Nurdin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
Kabogere Coffee Factory Ltd and Hajji Bruhan Mugerwa v Hajji Twaibu Kigongo (Civil Application No. 10 of 1993)
Crane Finance Co. v Makerere Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2001)

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.