Wakilii

Anselm Semakula v Anna Nabatanzi Lule and Others (Misc. Application No. 2024 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 465 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file notice of appeal and request for certified record of proceedings arising from HCCS No. 094 of 2010
Decision
Application dismissed as the documents sought to be filed out of time were already filed within the prescribed time limits

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

Application dismissed. The applicant sought extension of time to file documents that had already been filed within the prescribed time limits. The notice of appeal was filed on 26 July 2022, eleven days after judgment delivery on 15 July 2022, which was within time. The request for certified record of proceedings was also filed on the same day. Both documents were subsequently filed at the Court of Appeal on 4 October 2022. The court found no sufficient reason to grant the application and characterized it as an abuse of court process.

Outcome

Application dismissed as the documents sought to be filed out of time were already filed within the prescribed time limits

Facts

Judgment in HCCS No. 94 of 2010 was delivered on 15 July 2022. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 26 July 2022, eleven days after judgment delivery, which was within the prescribed time. On the same day, he applied for a certified copy of the record of proceedings. Both documents were filed at the Court of Appeal on 4 October 2022. The applicant then brought this application seeking extension of time to file these same documents, claiming his lawyer had passed away before judgment delivery and that he had fallen ill. The 3rd respondent opposed the application, noting that the applicant had engaged a new firm of advocates after his previous lawyer's death and that all necessary documents had been filed within time.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause to grant the application for extension of time to file notice of appeal and request for certified record of proceedings.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the 3rd Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Application for Extension Where Documents Already Filed Within Time
An application for extension of time to file documents that have already been filed within the prescribed time limits constitutes an abuse of court process and will be dismissed.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Specificity of Relief Sought
Where an applicant seeks extension of time to do any other essential steps without elaborating what those steps are, the court cannot grant orders that are not specific.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Computation of Time — Exclusion of Registrar's Time
Under section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the time taken by the Registrar in making a copy of the decree appealed against and of the record of proceedings is excluded in computing the period of limitation for appeals, and no separate court order is required to effect this exclusion.

Legislation cited (7)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Anselm_Semakula_v_Anna_Nabatanzi_Lule_and_Others_(Misc._Application_No._2024_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_465_(20_June_2023)
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.