Wakilii

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

Supreme Court · [2025] UGSC 4 · 2025 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Notice of Motion to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal and record of appeal out of time.
Decision
Application allowed; applicant granted leave to file his memorandum and record of appeal out of time 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

On an application for extension of time to file a memorandum and record of appeal, the Supreme Court held that the negligence and inactivity of an applicant's counsel — who, though instructed and paid, failed to file the appeal — should not be visited on an innocent litigant. The applicant had taken the steps required of a client, and the resulting delay, compounded by his six-month civil imprisonment, was plausibly explained and not attributable to his own dilatory conduct. Because the dispute concerned ownership of land and justice was best served by a hearing on the merits, sufficient cause was established and the extension was granted.

Facts

The respondents sued the applicant and five others over proprietorship of land at Kyamula, Makindye Division, Kampala, alleging the applicant fraudulently acquired and sold the suit property. The trial court found the respondents the rightful owners, held the defendants trespassers, and awarded damages, interest, demolition orders and a permanent injunction. The applicant and others appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2019) and were unsuccessful, judgment being delivered on 24 March 2022. The applicant instructed and paid M/S Barnabas D. K. Dyadi & Co. Advocates, who filed a notice of appeal and obtained certified copies of the record (received 26 April 2022), but 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, M/S G. W. Bwanika & Co., who obtained the case documents from the Court of Appeal file and filed the present application on 9 October 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant disclosed sufficient cause to be granted an extension of time within which to file his memorandum of appeal and record of appeal out of time.
  2. Whether the negligence and inactivity of the applicant's former advocates should be visited on the applicant as an innocent litigant.
  3. Whether the applicant was personally guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay amounting to dilatory conduct.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant granted leave to file his memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal out of time.
  • The memorandum and record of appeal shall be filed and served on the respondents within 7 days from the date of the Ruling.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause
Under Rule 5 of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, the court may extend time for sufficient reason; the reason relied on must be directly related to the party's inability or failure to take the required step in time, and the court must be satisfied that the delay was not caused by the applicant's own dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — 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 exercise its discretion so that the matter is considered on its merits.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Hearing on the Merits
In exercising its discretion to extend time, the court may take into account the need to have matters heard on their merits and disputes finally resolved, particularly where shutting a party out would cause an injustice and the opposing party suffers no prejudice.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.5
  • 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 (Civil Reference No. 15 of 2006)
  • Dr. Rubinga v Yakobo Kato and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1992)
  • Bugungo Samuel a Ngonslana Talldd.o. Sserutq.dda & 6 Ors SCCA JVo. 12 of 2O21 & 1O of 2022
  • Nicholas Kanganga v Paul Eluis Quori (Civil Reference No. 70 of 2022)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Philip Ongom (Capt.) v Catherine Nyero Owota (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2003)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani (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.