Wakilii

Abdalla v Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2009 - Reference)

Court of Appeal · [2009] UGCA 95 · 2009 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Justice from a Registrar's ruling extending time within which to file an appeal
Decision
Reference dismissed; Registrar's order extending time to file the appeal upheld

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 a reference from a Registrar's order extending time to file an appeal, the single Justice held that an affidavit in support of an application may be sworn by any person with knowledge of the relevant facts, not only the applicant or counsel, so the affidavit sworn by a lawyer in the firm was valid. The court further held that difficulty in tracing a client resident abroad and a temporarily misplaced court file constituted sufficient cause for extension of time, the object of the rule being to avoid injustice. The Registrar's order was upheld and the reference effectively dismissed.

Outcome

Reference dismissed; Registrar's order extending time to file the appeal upheld

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent in the High Court, Commercial Division, and judgment was entered for the applicant on 17 June 2008. The respondent applied for the record of proceedings the same day and received it on 27 June 2008. The respondent failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time, filing Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2008 on 28 November 2008, about five months after receipt of the record. After filing, on 22 December 2008, the respondent applied for extension of time (Civil Application No. 150 of 2008), which the Registrar granted, allowing 15 days to file the appeal. The respondent's counsel explained the delay arose because the client was a businesswoman resident in Rwanda who travelled frequently and was difficult to trace, and because the court file was temporarily misplaced. The applicant challenged both the supporting affidavit, sworn by a non-advocate lawyer in counsel's firm, and the sufficiency of cause for the extension, lodging this reference.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit sworn by Rose Akello, who was not an enrolled advocate, was a nullity rendering the application incompetent.
  2. Whether the Registrar properly evaluated the evidence in granting the extension of time.
  3. Whether sufficient cause was shown to justify the extension of time to file the appeal out of time.

Orders

  • Ground one disallowed; the affidavit was neither defective nor a nullity.
  • The Registrar's order granting extension of time to file the appeal is upheld.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavits — Competence of Deponent — Person Having Knowledge of Facts
An affidavit in support of a formal application may be sworn by any person with knowledge of the relevant facts, and need not be sworn by the applicant or the applicant's advocate, provided the source of knowledge is disclosed.
Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Discretion of the Court
The court has a discretion to extend time with a view to avoiding injustice, and what constitutes sufficient cause depends entirely on the circumstances of each case, there being no hard and fast rule.
Extension of Time — Merits of Intended Appeal Not Mandatory
It is not a mandatory requirement to demonstrate that an intended appeal has merit when seeking extension of time, although merit may be a relevant consideration.
Extension of Time — Difficulty Tracing Client Abroad and Misplaced File
Difficulty in tracing a client who resides outside the jurisdiction and travels frequently, combined with the temporary misplacement of the court file, may amount to sufficient cause for extending time to file an appeal.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Schafer v. Blyth (1920) 3 K.B. P. 143
  • Gatti v. Shoosmith, (1939) 3 All E.R. 916, CA
  • Mary Kyomulabi v. Ahamad Zirondomu (1980) HCB 11

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abdalla v Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2009 - Reference) [2009] UGCA 95 (16 February 2009)
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.