Wakilii

Butera v Mutalemwa (Civil Application 1 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 7 · 2022 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for a certificate of importance to enable a third appeal to the Supreme Court, following the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave
Decision
Application for a certificate of importance dismissed as incompetent for being filed out of time

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 Court upheld the respondent's preliminary objection that the application for a certificate of importance was time-barred. Rule 39(1)(b) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions requires such an application to be lodged within fourteen days of the Court of Appeal's refusal of a certificate. The application was filed twenty-seven days after the refusal — thirteen days out of time. The Court held that statutory time limits are matters of substantive justice, not mere technicalities, and must be strictly complied with absent good reason. Section 39(2) of the Civil Procedure Act did not assist the applicant because no copy of a decree or order was required. With no application for enlargement of time pending, the application was incompetent and was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant under summary procedure in the Chief Magistrates Court of Mengo for rental arrears of Shs 4,500,000. The trial magistrate awarded that sum plus special and general damages. On appeal, the High Court quashed the general damages award but confirmed the other awards. A further appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, and the applicant's application to that court for leave to appeal was denied on 20 December 2019. The applicant then filed the instant application in the Supreme Court on 17 January 2020, seeking a certificate of importance to enable a third appeal. The respondent objected that the application was lodged twenty-seven days after the refusal, outside the fourteen-day period prescribed by rule 39(1)(b), with no application for enlargement of time on record.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for a certificate of importance was filed within the fourteen-day period prescribed by rule 39(1)(b) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions.
  2. Whether section 39(2) of the Civil Procedure Act operated to exclude time from the computation of the limitation period.
  3. Whether, in the absence of an application for enlargement of time, an application filed out of time is properly before the Court.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Statutory Time Limits — Strict Compliance
Statutory time limits are a matter of substantive justice that enable orderly and predictable schedules for litigants and counsel; they are not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with except for good reason.
Civil Procedure — Certificate of Importance — Limitation under Rule 39(1)(b)
An application by notice of motion for leave to appeal on a matter of public or general importance must be lodged within fourteen days after the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant a certificate; an application filed outside that period, with no application for enlargement of time, is incompetent and not properly before the Court.
Civil Procedure — Computation of Time — Civil Procedure Act s.39(2)
Section 39(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which excludes the time taken to prepare a copy of the decree or order appealed against, applies only where the Registrar is required to make such a copy, and cannot be invoked to extend time where no copy was required.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Judicature Act s.6(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.39(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.39(1)(b)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.39(2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Utex Industries v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 1995)
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.