Wakilii

Dr. Musiime & 3 Others v Pearl Advocates and Solicitors (Civil Appeal 11 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2020] UGSC 29 · 2020 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal ruling dismissing an application for leave to appeal a High Court decision
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave to appeal stands

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 held that the fourteen-day period under Rule 40(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules and Directions for applying for leave to appeal runs from the date the ruling is delivered, not from when counsel or the parties receive a copy. Although service of notice of the ruling on counsel's secretary was ineffective and deplorable, the appellants should have applied expeditiously for leave to appeal out of time rather than treating the period as fresh. The appellants also failed to disclose any prima facie grounds with a likelihood of success, the supporting affidavit merely asserting an unspecified error apparent on the record. The repeated applications amounted to an abuse of court process. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The appellants had been represented by the respondent firm in earlier proceedings (Civil Suit No. 488 of 1999 and Miscellaneous Application No. 793 of 2003), which ended in a consent judgment with each party bearing its own costs. Following taxation of an advocate/client bill of costs, the Deputy Registrar awarded the respondent UGX 4,964,000, which the appellants paid. The appellants then pursued a long series of applications challenging that outcome, including applications to appeal, for review, for stay of execution, and for extension of time, all of which were dismissed, several as time barred under section 62 of the Advocates Act. The High Court ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2009 was delivered on 21 May 2012 in the absence of the appellants and their lawyer. Counsel obtained a copy on 31 October 2012 after inquiry to the Deputy Registrar and filed Civil Application No. 300 of 2012 in the Court of Appeal on 13 November 2012 seeking leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed that application, holding it time barred and that no prima facie grounds of appeal had been shown.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for leave to appeal (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 300 of 2012) was filed outside the 14 days allowed by law and was therefore time barred.
  2. Whether the appellants' advocate failed to act diligently in obtaining the ruling in time, and whether any such mistake of counsel should be visited on the clients.
  3. Whether the appellants demonstrated prima facie grounds showing their intended appeal had a likelihood of success so as to qualify for leave to appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs here and in the courts below.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Time for Applying for Leave to Appeal — When Time Begins to Run
The fourteen-day period for applying for leave to appeal under Rule 40(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules and Directions runs from the date the ruling or judgment is delivered, not from the date the parties or their counsel receive a copy of it.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Out of Time
Where a party becomes aware of a ruling only after the statutory period to seek leave to appeal has elapsed, the proper course is to apply expeditiously for leave to appeal out of time, and not to treat the period as running afresh from the date the ruling is received.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Requirement to Demonstrate Prima Facie Grounds with Likelihood of Success
An applicant for leave to appeal must place before the court the grounds intended to be relied on and demonstrate that the proposed appeal has a likelihood of success; a bare affidavit asserting an unspecified error apparent on the record does not disclose such grounds.
Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Form under Rule 82(1) of the Supreme Court Rules
A memorandum of appeal must set forth the grounds of objection concisely and under distinct heads, without argument or narrative; grounds that are argumentative or narrative offend Rule 82(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions and may render the appeal liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Court Process — Repeated Meritless Applications
Filing a continuous series of meritless applications over a number of years in an attempt to relitigate a concluded matter constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Advocates Act s.62
  • Advocates Act s.62(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 82(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules and Directions Rule 40(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules and Directions Rule 40(1)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules and Directions Rule 29(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order XXI Rule 1
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (11)

  • Joseph Muluta v Sylvano Katama (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 1999)
  • F.L. Kaderbhai & Another v Shamsherali Zaver Virji & Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 20 of 2008)
  • Hwan Sung Ltd v M&D Timber Merchants and Transporters Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Administrator General v Bwanika James and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2003)
  • Coghlan v Cumberland (1898) 1 Ch 704
  • Pandya v R (1957) EA 336
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Goustar Enterprises Ltd v Oumo [2006] EA 77
  • Shartilal M. Ruwala Vs R (Supra)
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.