Wakilii

The Red Pepper Publication Limited & Another v Wambuzi (Civil Application 25 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2020] UGSC 55 · 2020 Application Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal, and for validation of a notice of appeal filed out of time, against a Court of Appeal decision
Decision
Application struck out as incompetent and barred in law; merits not considered.

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 respondent raised a preliminary objection that, under the concurrent-jurisdiction provision in rule 41(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, an application capable of being made to either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court must be made to the Court of Appeal first. The court held that the rules are mandatory: a notice of appeal and an application for extension of time must be lodged in the Court of Appeal first. As the applicants had not shown that they applied to the Court of Appeal, or that the Court of Appeal refused or delayed, no special circumstance justified coming directly to the Supreme Court. The application was held incompetent and barred in law and was struck out without reaching the merits.

Facts

The applicants were sued for libel by the respondent in the High Court (Civil Suit No. 0305 of 2015), decided by Basaza Wasswa, J on 4 May 2017. On appeal, the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 0128 of 2017) on 20 July 2020 awarded the respondent UGX 150,000,000 in general damages (reduced from the trial court's UGX 375,000,000) and maintained UGX 50,000,000 in exemplary damages. Dissatisfied, the applicants instructed their former counsel, Okua & Associates, to appeal, but no notice of appeal was filed within the 14-day period. After instructing new counsel, Allan & Festo Advocates, a notice of appeal was filed on 13 August 2020, out of time. The applicants then sought an extension of time and validation of the notice of appeal in the Supreme Court, asserting that the delay resulted from their former counsel's failure to act.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was competent before the Supreme Court when it had not first been made to the Court of Appeal under rule 41(1) of the Supreme Court Rules.
  2. Whether the applicants had shown sufficient cause for the late filing of the notice of appeal.

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Concurrent Jurisdiction — Order of Applications (Supreme Court Rules r.41(1) and r.72(1))
Where an application may be made either to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeal, rules 41(1) and 72(1) of the Supreme Court Rules require it to be made to the Court of Appeal first; an application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal lodged directly in the Supreme Court, without first applying to the Court of Appeal, is incompetent and barred in law.
Civil Procedure — Concurrent Jurisdiction — Special Circumstances Exception
The Supreme Court may entertain such an application directly only in special circumstances — where the Court of Appeal has refused the application, declined jurisdiction for manifestly wrong reasons, or occasioned great delay; the applicant must place all relevant facts before the court to establish such circumstances.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.5
  • Supreme Court Rules r.41(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.72(1)
  • Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.33
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (3)

  • Horizon Coaches Ltd v Edward Rurangaranga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2009)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises Ltd v Kampala City Council & Kampala District Land Board (Civil Application No. 9 of 2017)
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.