Wakilii

Boney M. Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application 27 of 2007)

Supreme Court · [2008] UGSC 3 · 2008 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for extension of time to institute an appeal from a Court of Appeal decision
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs; the applicant remains out of time to appeal

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 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 single Justice dismissed an application for extension of time to institute an appeal. While a party should not ordinarily be penalised for counsel's mistake, the court found the delay inordinate and the applicant at least partly to blame: his former advocates conceded a lack of diligence, his new advocates repeated the same failure to monitor the registry, and his conduct (an agreement to pay the respondent's advocate's fees) suggested he no longer contemplated appealing. The court also clarified that rule 79(2) suspends time only for the certified period of preparing the record, not afterwards. The applicant failed to show that refusing the extension would cause manifest injustice, so no sufficient reason existed.

Facts

The Court of Appeal delivered judgment against the applicant on 23 May 2006. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 29 May 2006 and his then advocates applied for the record of proceedings. By letter of 11 April 2007 the Registrar intimated that the record was ready; the former advocates' stamp acknowledged receipt on 18 April 2007, but neither side responded. After instructing new advocates in August 2007, who again merely wrote to the Registrar rather than checking the registry, the applicant filed this application late in 2007 seeking extension of time. The respondent contended the applicant was himself dilatory, had pursued settlement, and had entered an agreement to pay the respondent's advocate's fees in exchange for a discharge on costs and a promise of no further execution, suggesting he had abandoned any intention to appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established sufficient reason under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules to justify an extension of time to institute the appeal.
  2. Whether the inordinate delay was attributable solely to the mistake of counsel such that it should not be visited on the applicant.
  3. Whether refusal of the extension would result in a manifest denial of justice.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason under Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules
Under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules the court may extend time for sufficient reason, a matter within its unfettered discretion; sufficient reason includes either a reason that prevented the applicant from acting in time or other reasons why the intended appeal should be allowed to proceed out of time, and a promptly brought application is treated more sympathetically than one delayed without explanation.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — When Visited on the Party
A party should not be penalised for the mistake of counsel unless the mistake is caused by the party's own conduct, such as a failure to give adequate or proper instructions or to pursue the matter diligently.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Suspension of Time under Rule 79(2) of the Supreme Court Rules
Rule 79(2) of the Supreme Court Rules suspends the running of time only for the period certified by the registrar as required for preparation and delivery of the copy record, running from the date of application to the certified date; it does not extend to the period before the application nor to the time after the record is ready while the advocate awaits an invitation to collect it, so a diligent advocate must monitor the registry's progress rather than merely write letters or await collection notice.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Burden to Show Manifest Injustice
Where it is not shown that enforcement of the limitation of time would result in a manifest denial of justice, extension of time is not justified; the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that refusal of the extension would cause him injustice.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.1(3)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.4
  • Supreme Court Rules r.5
  • Supreme Court Rules r.43
  • Supreme Court Rules r.79(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • In re Alexander Jo' Okello s. Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Civil Application No. 17 of 1996)
  • Yona Kanyomozi v Motor Mart (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 8 of 1998)
  • Shiv Construction Co. Ltd v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1992)
  • Ddegeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v URA (Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1996)
  • Shah v Jamnadas (1959) EA 838
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.