Wakilii

Abubakar Nyende and Another v Magoba Holdings Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 84 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 408 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enlargement of time to file application for leave to appeal from interlocutory order allowing amendment of pleadings
Decision
Application dismissed

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

An application for enlargement of time to file an application for leave to appeal must demonstrate sufficient cause. Where applicants filed a notice of appeal and requested proceedings but failed to apply for leave within the prescribed fourteen days, claiming loss of contact with counsel, the court held that the explanation was insufficient. The applicants took deliberate procedural steps demonstrating awareness of the appellate process, failed to follow up their matter, and provided no evidence of diligence. The delay was inordinate and unexplained. The intended appeal against an interlocutory order allowing amendment of pleadings raised no arguable points of law. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Facts

The applicants, administrators pendente lite of an estate, sought enlargement of time to file an application for leave to appeal against a ruling delivered on 27 June 2025 in Miscellaneous Application No. 27 of 2024, which allowed the first respondent to amend pleadings. The applicants filed a notice of appeal on 2 July 2025 and requested proceedings through their former lawyers. They claimed they subsequently lost contact with those lawyers and believed the appeal had been filed, unaware that no application for leave to appeal had been made. The application for enlargement of time was filed in September 2025. The first respondent opposed, contending that the steps taken by the applicants' lawyers were deliberate procedural actions, not mistakes, and that the applicants were guilty of dilatory conduct.

Issues

  1. Whether the application contains sufficient grounds for enlargement of time to file an application for leave to appeal.
  2. What are the remedies available.

Orders

  • The application for enlargement of time to file an application for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.
  • The costs of this application shall be costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Time Limits — Application for Enlargement of Time
An appeal from an interlocutory order does not lie except with leave of the court making the order or the court to which an appeal would lie if leave were given, and application for leave must be made informally at the time the decision is given or by notice of motion within fourteen days of the decision.
Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Sufficient Cause — Mistake of Counsel
While mistakes of counsel may in appropriate circumstances be excusable, not every mistake warrants the exercise of the court's discretion to enlarge time. The mistake must be genuine, excusable, and not indicative of negligence or incompetence, and the applicant must demonstrate diligence upon discovering the mistake.
Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Duty of Litigant to Follow Up
It is the duty of an intended appellant to follow up and inquire from his advocate on the status of his case. Following up does not require the litigant to be knowledgeable in court processes. Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Interlocutory Orders — Amendment of Pleadings — Piecemeal Appeals
An order allowing amendment of pleadings is a discretionary interlocutory order which does not finally determine the rights of the parties. Courts discourage piecemeal appeals against such interlocutory decisions.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd & Ors v Dresdner Bank [1971] EA 17
  • Banco Arabe Espanyol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Kananura Andrew Kansiime v Richard Henry Kaijuka (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 15 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Abubakar Nyende and Another v Magoba Holdings Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 84 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 408 (9 March 2026)
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.