Wakilii

Attorney General of Uganda v Media Legal Defence Initiative and Others (Consolidated Applications 4 of 2018; Consolidated Applications 6 of 2018)

East African Court of Justice · [2019] EACJ 44 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to appeal an interlocutory ruling of the First Instance Division allowing respondents to join as amici curiae
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed; main Reference No 16 of 2014 to proceed in the First Instance Division

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 East African Court of Justice Appellate Division dismissed the Attorney General of Uganda's application for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against a ruling admitting amici curiae. The Court held that the applicant failed to establish sufficient reason under Rule 4 of the Court's Rules of Procedure. The explanation that a State Attorney about to go on maternity leave filed the Notice in the wrong registry did not meet the qualitatively higher standard required. The Court found a pattern of persistent failure to comply with procedural timelines and held that admission of amici curiae is a matter of judicial discretion which cannot be usurped by a party through repeated appeals.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed; main Reference No 16 of 2014 to proceed in the First Instance Division

Facts

The Attorney General of Uganda sought extension of time to appeal a ruling of the First Instance Division dated 20 September 2017 which allowed 20 media and human rights organisations to join Reference No 16 of 2014 as amici curiae. The Attorney General filed a Notice of Appeal on 6 October 2017 but filed it in the wrong registry (First Instance Division instead of Appellate Division). The Notice was served on respondents on 18 December 2017, outside the 14-day period. The Attorney General filed a Record of Appeal on 4 January 2018, also out of time. Multiple applications followed to validate service and filing. The Attorney General withdrew earlier applications and filed a fresh Notice of Appeal on 16 July 2018, approximately 10 months after the impugned ruling. The Attorney General attributed the delay to an error by a State Attorney who was going on maternity leave. The respondents opposed the application, arguing the Attorney General had shown a pattern of disregard for procedural rules and had not established sufficient reason for extension of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the late filing of the 16th July 2018 Notice of Appeal should be validated.
  2. Whether the 16th July 2018 Notice of Appeal was instituted out of time and should be struck out.
  3. What reliefs are the parties entitled to.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Extension of Time — Rule 4 — Test of Sufficient Reason
Under Rule 4 of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013, the Court has discretion to extend time for doing any act authorised or required by the Rules, but this discretion must be exercised judicially and only where sufficient reason is established. Sufficient reason does not mean any reason but requires a qualitatively higher standard. In determining whether sufficient reason exists, the court should take into account not only the applicant's inability or failure to take an essential procedural step in time, but also other considerations including the promptitude with which the remedial application is brought, whether the jurisdiction of the Court or legality of the decision is in issue, whether there was manifest breach of natural justice, the public importance of the matter, and the prejudice that may be occasioned to either party by the grant or refusal of the application.
Amicus Curiae — Admission — Judicial Discretion
The admission of an amicus curiae brief is a matter of judicial discretion which, like all discretion, should be exercised judiciously. An amicus curiae is a friend of the court, not a party to the proceedings, and the amicus brief is for the benefit of the court. When the court has properly exercised its discretion to benefit from an amicus brief, it is not open to one of the parties to appeal that decision on the ground that a particular expert should not be the court's friend. Such an appeal would amount to usurping the court's discretion.
Extension of Time — Mistake of Counsel — Insufficient Reason
The explanation that a State Attorney was going on maternity leave and hence filed a Notice of Appeal in the wrong registry struggles to meet the test of sufficient reason for extension of time and amounts to finding any reason rather than the qualitatively higher standard required. While substantive justice should be promoted and errors of counsel should not ordinarily prejudice litigants, where the benefit of an amicus brief goes to the court rather than to a party, the position of a litigant being prejudiced is misconceived.
Extension of Time — Lack of Promptitude — Pattern of Non-Compliance
A persistent pattern of falling short of the timelines prescribed by the Rules of Court depicting lack of promptitude cannot be explained away as mere procedural lapses. Such a pattern is evidence of failure to adequately prepare for court and is unacceptable. Where such lack of promptitude has the net effect of stalling the main reference and causing miscarriage of justice, the interests of justice require that the main reference proceed rather than granting extension of time for further interlocutory appeals.

Legislation cited (7)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 4
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 36
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 78
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 79
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 82A
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 84(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 86

Cases cited (12)

  • Prof. Anyang' Nyong'o & 10 Others v Attorney General of Kenya (Applications Nos 1 and 2 of 2010)
  • Wasike v Khisa & Another [2004] 1 KLR 197
  • Boney M Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No 27 of 2007)
  • James Bwogi & Sons Ltd v Kampala City Council & Kampala District Land Board (Supreme Court Civil Application No 09 of 2017)
  • Attorney General & Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga & James Kamala (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No 8 of 2004)
  • Caroline Turyatemba & 4 Others v Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission (Constitutional Petition No 15 of 2006)
  • Godfrey Magezi v National Medical Stores (Appeal No 2 of 2016)
  • Attorney General of Kenya v Prof Anyang' Nyong'o (Appeal No 1 of 2009)
  • Attorney General of Uganda v Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI) & 19 Others (Appeal No 3 of 2016)
  • Ronald Ssembuusi v Attorney General of Uganda (Reference No 16 of 2014)
  • Dr Ally Possi & Another v Human Rights Awareness & Promotion Forum (HRAPF) & Another (Application No 1 of 2005)
  • R v University of Cambridge [1723] 1 Str 557

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General of Uganda v Media Legal Defence Initiative and Others (Consolidated Applications 4 of 2018; Consolidated Applications 6 of 2018) [2019] EACJ 44 (28 May 2019)
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.