Wakilii

Ajilong v Airtel Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 151 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 39 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file appeal out of time arising from judgment of the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kumi
Decision
Leave to appeal granted; applicant to lodge notice and memorandum of appeal by 15 March 2024

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

The High Court granted leave to appeal out of time notwithstanding that the applicant's counsel attended court on the day judgment was delivered. The court held that while the applicant was guilty of dilatory conduct through counsel's presence at judgment delivery, the mistake of counsel should not be visited on the client, and the trial court's failure to issue and serve formal judgment notices justified exercising discretion to extend time. The court emphasized substantive justice under Article 126(2)(e) and held that the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application despite the applicant not first seeking leave in the trial court.

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted; applicant to lodge notice and memorandum of appeal by 15 March 2024

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 003 of 2017 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kumi seeking a permanent injunction, compensation, and damages against the respondent regarding operation of a telecommunications mast. Judgment was scheduled for 27 April 2022 but the judgment was not ready. The matter was adjourned to 18 May 2022, but judgment was ultimately delivered on 1 June 2022. The applicant's counsel, Stephen Masajage, attended court on 1 June 2022 when judgment was delivered, though the applicant herself was absent. The applicant through different counsel at M/s Omongole and Company Advocates filed this application on 9 November 2022 seeking leave to appeal out of time, claiming they only discovered the judgment had been delivered when they attended court on a different matter and that no judgment notices had been issued.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a proper case for the Applicant to be granted leave to file an appeal against Civil Suit No. 003 of 2017 of the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kumi at Kumi out of time?
  2. What are the remedies to the applicant in the circumstances?

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicant granted leave to appeal Civil Suit No. 003 of 2017 of the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kumi at Kumi out of time.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Applicant has up to 15th March 2024 to lodge a notice and memorandum of appeal with this court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Jurisdiction — High Court's Power to Grant Leave to Appeal Out of Time Without Prior Application to Trial Court
Although Order 44 Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that applications for leave to appeal shall as a matter of first instance be made to the court making the order sought to be appealed from, the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction in all matters and appellate jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 16(1) of the Judicature Act to entertain an application for leave to appeal out of time even where the applicant did not first seek leave in the trial court, particularly where substantive justice requires avoiding undue regard to technicalities under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Factors to Be Considered
An applicant seeking extension of time to appeal has the burden of proving to the court's satisfaction that for sufficient reasons it was not possible to lodge the appeal in the prescribed time. Factors to be considered are: (i) the length of delay; (ii) the reason for delay; (iii) the possibility or chances of success; and (iv) the degree of prejudice to the other party. Sufficient reason must relate to the inability or failure to take a particular step in the proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Mistake of Counsel — Effect on Client
The mistake of counsel should not be visited on the applicant. Where counsel attended court on the day judgment was delivered and thus had knowledge of the judgment and applicable timelines, but the client herself was absent and claimed ignorance of the judgment delivery, the court may exercise discretion to grant leave to appeal out of time particularly where the trial court failed to issue and serve formal judgment notices on the parties.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (8)

  • William Odoi Nyandusi v Jackson Oyuku Kasendi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2018)
  • J Hannington Wasswa v M Onyango Ochola [1992-1993] HCB 103
  • Hodandi Daniel v Yolamu Engondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Delvi v Diamond Concrete Company [1974] EA 493
  • Mugo v Wanjiru [1970] EA 481
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1986)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Gurdial Singh Dhillion v Sham Kaur [1960] EA 795

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ajilong v Airtel Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 151 of 2022) [2024] UGHCCD 39 (1 February 2024)
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.