Julius Rwabinumi v Hope Bahimbisomwe (Civil Application 14 of 2009)

Supreme Court · [2009] UGSC 8 · 2009 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

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

Decision

Extension of time granted; record of appeal to be filed within 10 days

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 Supreme Court (single judge) held that the applicant had shown sufficient reason under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules to justify an extension of time to institute his appeal. The delay arose because former counsel, though notified that the record of proceedings was ready, failed to collect it, prepare the record of appeal, or inform the applicant. Applying the settled principle that an error or blunder of counsel should not necessarily be visited on the client, the court declined to attribute the delay to the applicant. Neither his entering a settlement while imprisoned in execution of the decree nor his change of advocates barred the appeal. The application was allowed with costs to the applicant.

Facts

The applicant and respondent were a married couple whose marriage broke down. The applicant lost a divorce petition in the High Court, which made consequential orders against him, and then lost his appeal in the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2007) on 19 June 2008. He promptly instructed counsel to appeal to the Supreme Court; counsel lodged a Notice of Appeal on 3 July 2008 and requested a certified copy of the record of proceedings. By letter dated 16 October 2008, the Court of Appeal Registrar informed counsel that the record and judgment were ready for collection on payment. Counsel took no steps to collect the record, prepare the record of appeal, or inform the applicant, so the appeal was not instituted within the prescribed time. The applicant, meanwhile, had entered into a settlement with the respondent on satisfying the decree while imprisoned in execution of it. He sought an extension of time to institute his intended appeal.

Issues

Whether the applicant established sufficient reason to justify an extension of time within which to institute his appeal.
Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal was attributable to the negligence of counsel rather than to the applicant personally.

Orders

Application allowed.
Memorandum and Record of Appeal to be filed within 10 days from the date of this ruling.
Respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason as a Matter of Judicial Discretion

Under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules the court may, for sufficient reason, extend time prescribed by the Rules or by a decision of the court for the doing of any act, and what constitutes sufficient reason is a matter left to the discretion of the court.

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Negligence of Counsel Not Visited on Client

The blunder or error of an advocate should not necessarily be visited on the client, and the negligence of counsel in failing to collect the record of proceedings and institute an appeal in time constitutes sufficient reason to grant an extension of time.

Civil Procedure — Appeal and Execution — Execution of a Decree No Bar to Prosecuting an Appeal

Just as the institution of an appeal is no bar to execution of a decree, the execution of a decree, or a settlement entered to satisfy it, does not necessarily prevent a party from prosecuting an appeal where there is no evidence of withdrawal of the appeal.

Legislation cited (6)

Supreme Court Rules r.2(1)
Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)
Supreme Court Rules r.5
Supreme Court Rules r.42
Supreme Court Rules r.50
Supreme Court Rules r.79(2)

Cases cited (5)

F. L. Kaderbhai and N. H. Valiji v Shamsherali M. Zaver Virji and Others (Civil Application No. 20 of 2008)
Boney Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
Delia Almaida v Rui Almaida (Civil Application No. 15 of 1990)
Haji Mardin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
Zam Nalumansi v Sulaiman Bale (Civil Application No. 2 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.