F.L.Kaderbhai & Anor v Shamsherali Zaver Virji & Ors [2008] UGSC 20

Supreme Court · 2008 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application by notice of motion for extension of time to institute an appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Court of Appeal

Decision

Extension of time granted; applicants ordered to file the record and memorandum of appeal within one week

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 an application for extension of time to file an appeal out of time, the Court held that what constitutes "sufficient reason" under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules lies within the Court's unfettered discretion, and that inadvertence or negligence of counsel can amount to sufficient reason. The applicants' former advocates had filed the notice of appeal and requested the proceedings in time but inadvertently failed to serve them on the opposite party. As the applicants had consistently shown interest in pursuing their appeal on the merits over ownership of valuable property, the Court found the justice of the case favoured granting the application, distinguishing authority where the applicant had been dilatory and non-vigilant.

Facts

Dissatisfied with a Court of Appeal judgment delivered on 12 November 2007 in Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2004, the applicants instructed counsel to appeal. Counsel filed a notice of appeal on 15 November 2007 and wrote on 30 November 2007 requesting a certified copy of the proceedings, but inadvertently failed to serve the notice of appeal and the request letter on the opposite party as required by the Rules. Because of that failure, the time taken to prepare the record could not be deducted, and the period for filing the appeal elapsed on 15 January 2008. The record only became available on 29 April 2008. The applicants, who live in the United Kingdom, had changed their email address, and counsel said they could not obtain fees and instructions until early July 2008. The application for extension was not filed until 16 September 2008, after the applicants learned of an application to strike out the notice of appeal. At stake was ownership of a commercial building on Plot No. 25, Nasser Road.

Issues

Whether the applicants had shown sufficient reason under rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court to justify an extension of time within which to institute their appeal.

Orders

Application allowed.
Costs of the application awarded to the respondents as conceded by the applicants.
The applicants shall file the record and memorandum of appeal within one week from the date of the ruling.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — "Sufficient Reason" under Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules

Under rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court the court may, for sufficient reason, extend the time prescribed by the Rules, and what constitutes sufficient reason is left to the court's unfettered discretion, embracing either a reason that prevented the applicant from taking the essential step in time or other reasons why the intended appeal should be allowed to proceed out of time.

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Inadvertence or Negligence of Counsel

Inadvertence or negligence of counsel can constitute sufficient reason for an extension of time, and an error of counsel should not necessarily be visited on the client so as to deprive the client of the right to have an appeal heard on the merits.

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Relevance of Delay, Vigilance and Risk of Injustice

A promptly brought application is considered more sympathetically than one delayed without explanation, but even where an application is unduly delayed the court may grant an extension where shutting out the appeal would cause injustice, particularly where the applicant has consistently shown interest in pursuing the appeal on the merits.

Legislation cited (8)

Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.5
Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
Rules of the Supreme Court r.50
Rules of the Supreme Court r.74(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.79(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.79(3)

Cases cited (3)

Boney M. Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
Delia Almaida v Carmo Rui Almaida (Civil Application No. 15 of 1990)
Zam Nalumansi v Suleman Lule (Civil Application No. 02 of 1999)

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.