Wakilii

Magezi and Anor v Rupaleria (Civil Application 10 of 2002)

Supreme Court · [2004] UGSC 33 · 2004 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for extension of time to file an appeal out of time and for validation of an appeal already filed out of time
Decision
Application granted; extension of time allowed and Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2001 validated as filed on 9th November 2001

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 8 (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

The court held that the mistake, omission or inadvertence of counsel, and errors of court officials, ought not to be visited on a litigant so as to deny justice, and that such errors constitute sufficient reason to extend time under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court. As there was no evidence that the applicants themselves caused the confusion over the filing dates, sufficient reason existed to extend time to appeal out of time. Where an appeal has already been filed, albeit out of time, the legal effect of extending time is to validate or excuse the late filing, so no fresh documents need be filed. Extension of time was granted and Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2001 was deemed validly filed.

Facts

The applicants instructed M/s. Birungi & Co. Advocates to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal's decision in Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1999. Counsel filed Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2001 and paid filing fees and security for costs totalling Shs. 520,000. The appeal was filed on 9th November 2001, outside the prescribed 60-day period after delivery of the record of proceedings. The court file bore conflicting dates: a received stamp of 9th September 2001, receipts dated 9th October and 9th November 2001, and a Registrar's lodgment seal of 20th December 2001. The applicants changed counsel to M/s. Nyanzi, Kiboneka and Mbabazi Advocates, who discovered the late filing. The applicants sought extension of time and validation, contending the confusion arose from the conduct of their former counsel and court officials, not themselves. The respondent argued the inconsistent dates were deliberately inserted and implied complicity by the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient reason was shown to grant an extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. Whether the mistake, omission or inadvertence of counsel should be visited on the litigant so as to strike out the appeal.
  3. Whether an appeal already filed out of time (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2001) could be validated by an extension of time.

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal out of time is granted.
  • Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2001 is deemed to have been validly filed on 9th November 2001.
  • Application for validation of Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2001 is allowed.
  • Costs of this application to be in the cause.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Mistake or Inadvertence of Counsel
The mistake, omission or inadvertence of counsel, even where negligent, ought not to be visited on the litigant so as to lead to the striking out of the appeal and the denial of justice, and may constitute sufficient reason for an extension of time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Errors of Court Officials
Errors or mistakes made by court officials are sufficient grounds for granting a litigant an extension of time within which to file an appeal out of time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Validation of Appeal Filed Out of Time
Where an appeal has already been lodged, albeit out of time, the legal effect of extending time under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court is to validate or excuse the late filing; the document is deemed duly lodged within the extended time and fresh documents need not be filed.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason
An extension of time under Rule 4 may be granted only for sufficient reason, which depends on the circumstances of each case and must relate to the applicant's inability or failure to take a particular step in time.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.1(3)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.11
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.12
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.41
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (12)

  • Executrix of the Estate of Christine Mary N Tebaijuka and Another v Noel Grace Shalita (Civil Application No. 8 of 1999)
  • Haji Nurdin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
  • David Nsubuga & 3 Others v Margaret Kamuge (Civil Application No. 31 of 1997)
  • Crane Finance Co. Ltd v Makerere Properties (Civil Application No. 1 of 2001)
  • Mansukhalal Ramji Karia & Crane Finance Co. Ltd v Attorney General & 2 Others (Civil Application No. 1 of 2003)
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Zinsobedde (Civil Application No. 5 of 1997)
  • Karia & Anor v Attorney General & Others (Civil Application No. 1 of 2003)
  • Shanti v Hindocha [1973] E.A. 207
  • Gatti v Shoosmith [1939] 3 All ER 916
  • Bray v Bray [1957] EA 302
  • Alex Jo Okello v Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Civil Application No. 17 of 1981)
  • Bhatt v Tejwant Singh [1962] EA 497
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.