Nabco Enterprises Uganda Limited v Registered Trustees of the Jesuit (Civil Application 39 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2021] UGSC 40 · 2021 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application before a single Justice of the Supreme Court for extension of time to file the Memorandum and Record of Appeal out of time, or validation of those already filed

Decision

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

On an application under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules to extend time for filing the Memorandum and Record of Appeal, the single Justice held that the applicant had not shown sufficient reason. The 2021 nationwide COVID-19 lockdown did not prevent filing because the court registry remained open and operations were only scaled down; the Chief Justice's circular of 21 June 2021 did not shut the court. The applicant's plea of financial inability was rejected as unparticularised, no amount having been stated. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The applicant lost High Court Civil Suit No. 893 of 2014 and its subsequent appeal, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2018, which was determined in the respondent's favour on 12 March 2021. The applicant lodged a Notice of Appeal and requested the typed record of proceedings on 26 March 2021, receiving it on 21 April 2021. The Memorandum and Record of Appeal were due in the Supreme Court but were filed out of time. The applicant attributed the delay to the nationwide lockdown imposed on 18 June 2021 and to lack of finances to prepare a voluminous record of about 1,356 pages. The respondent countered that the court registry remained open during the lockdown, that the applicant (a construction company) continued operating, and that the asserted lack of money was unsubstantiated, the application having been filed on 17 September 2021, well after the lockdown was lifted.

Issues

Whether the applicant showed sufficient reason under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules to warrant an extension of time to file the Memorandum and Record of Appeal out of time.

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, for sufficient reason, extend time within its unfettered discretion, accepting either a reason that prevented the applicant from taking the essential step in time or other reasons why the intended appeal should proceed out of time; a promptly brought application is viewed more sympathetically than one delayed without explanation.

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — COVID-19 Lockdown as Sufficient Cause

The 2021 nationwide lockdown does not by itself constitute sufficient cause for failing to file an appeal in time where the court registry remained open and operations were only scaled down, the Chief Justice's circular not having closed the court.

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Financial Inability — Particularisation

A bare assertion of lack of money, without stating the amount required or evidence of the alleged financial incapacity, is not a cogent reason and cannot amount to sufficient cause for an extension of time.

Legislation cited (4)

Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.5
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.42(1)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.42(2)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.43(1)

Cases cited (4)

Tushabe Chris v Co-operative Bank Ltd (in receivership) (Civil Application No. 8 of 2018)
F. L. Kaderbhai & Another v Shamsherali Zaver Virji & Others (Civil Application No. 20 of 2008)
Boney M. Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises Ltd v Kampala City Council & Another (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.