Wakilii

Damulira v Sserunjogi & Another (Civil Application 42 of 2023)

Supreme Court · [2025] UGSC 12 · 2025 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to the Supreme Court for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal and record of appeal out of time.
Decision
Application for extension of time granted; applicant to file and serve the memorandum and record of appeal within 7 days of the ruling.

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 Court held that where an applicant instructed and paid advocates who then failed to file the memorandum and record of appeal within time, the negligence and inactivity of counsel constituted sufficient cause for an extension of time and should not be visited on the litigant. The applicant, who had taken the steps required of a client and pursued the appeal after his release from civil prison, was not personally guilty of dilatory conduct. As the dispute concerned ownership of land and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in possession, the interest of justice favoured hearing the appeal on its merits. The application was allowed.

Facts

The respondents sued the applicant and five others over proprietorship of land at Kyamula, Makindye Division, Kampala. The trial court found the respondents the rightful owners, held the applicant had fraudulently acquired and sold the land, and awarded damages, demolition of structures and a permanent injunction. The defendants' appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2019) was dismissed by judgment delivered on 24 March 2022. The applicant instructed and paid M/S Barnabas D. K Dyadi & Co. Advocates to appeal to the Supreme Court; they filed a notice of change of instructions, a notice of appeal and applied for the certified record, which was received on 26 April 2022, but they never filed the memorandum and record of appeal within the required 60 days. The applicant was arrested and detained in civil prison from 1 September 2022 until his release in February 2023. On release he instructed new advocates, who obtained the file from the Court of Appeal and brought this application for extension of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses sufficient cause to grant the applicant leave to file his memorandum of appeal and record of appeal out of time.

Orders

  • The application is allowed.
  • The applicant is granted leave to file his memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal out of time.
  • The memorandum of appeal and record of appeal shall be filed and served on the respondents within 7 days from the date of this ruling.
  • The costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Negligence of Counsel
A mistake, negligence, oversight or error on the part of counsel should not be visited on the litigant and may constitute sufficient cause entitling the court to extend time so that the matter is considered on its merits.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Court's Discretion under Rule 5
The discretion to extend time for sufficient reason under Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules is unfettered; the applicant must satisfy the court that a genuine reason prevented the timely step and that the delay was not caused by his own dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Interest of Justice — Hearing on the Merits
Where shutting a party out would cause injustice and no prejudice would be occasioned to the opposite party, the court may extend time so that the appeal is heard on its merits and the dispute finally resolved.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.5
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.41(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.42(1),(2),(3)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.43(1),(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.44(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 71 s.98

Cases cited (7)

  • Kananura Kansiime Andrew v Richard Henry Kaijuka (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 15 of 2006)
  • Dr. Rubinga v Yakobo Kato and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1992)
  • Bugungo Samuel v Ngonsiana Talikido Sserunjadda & 6 Ors (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2021 & 10 of 2022)
  • Nicholas Kanyanya v Paul Elvis Owori (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 70 of 2022)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Capt. Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2003)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1993)
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.