Wakilii

Byampangi & 2 Others v Kigoora (Civil Application 23 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 76 · 2019 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for extension of time to file an application for a certificate of importance, following the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant a certificate.
Decision
Extension of time granted; applicants to file the application for a certificate of importance within seven days.

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

The applicants sought extension of time to lodge an application for a certificate of importance after the Court of Appeal refused a certificate, their application being eight days outside the 14-day period under Rule 39(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules. The single Justice accepted that the first applicant was away from Kampala attending to the loss of his son and was unaware of the ruling date, making it impossible to lodge within time, and that counsel could not act without instructions. Holding that a delay of eight days was not inordinate in those circumstances, the Court found sufficient cause shown and granted the extension, directing that the application be filed within seven days.

Facts

The applicants filed Civil Application No. 214 of 2011 in the Court of Appeal seeking a certificate of importance to appeal to the Supreme Court. That application was dismissed on 11 September 2019, the ruling being delivered on notice in the absence of the applicants, who were unaware of the date. The first applicant, the main contact person, had lost a son, which disrupted his schedule and left him unreachable on his known telephone contacts. The applicants only learned of the dismissal on 1 October 2019 when the first applicant called their lawyer. Under Rule 39(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, an application following the Court of Appeal's refusal of a certificate must be lodged within 14 days of the refusal. The applicants lodged their application in the Supreme Court on 3 October 2019, eight days outside the prescribed period, and accordingly sought an extension of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants had shown sufficient cause to justify an extension of time within which to file an application for a certificate of importance in the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • Extension of time within which to file the application for a certificate of importance granted.
  • The application for a certificate of importance to be filed within seven (7) days from the date of the ruling.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause for Late Filing
Where an applicant is absent from the jurisdiction attending to a family bereavement and is unaware of the date a ruling is delivered, such that it is impossible to lodge an application within the prescribed period, sufficient cause is shown to justify an extension of time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Inordinate Delay
A delay of eight days beyond the prescribed 14-day period for lodging an application is not inordinate where it is explained by circumstances beyond the applicant's control.
Civil Procedure — Certificate of Importance — Application Following Refusal by Court of Appeal
Under Rule 39(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, where the Court of Appeal refuses to grant a certificate of importance, an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court must be lodged by notice of motion within fourteen days after the refusal.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.5
  • Supreme Court Rules r.39(1)
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.