Wakilii

Attorney General v Oriental Construction Co. Limited (Civil Application 7 of 1990)

Supreme Court · [1991] UGSC 30 · 1991 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to lodge a Notice of Appeal out of time (extension of time) under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Decision
Application for extension of time to lodge a Notice of Appeal dismissed with costs.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Attorney General applied to extend time to lodge a Notice of Appeal against a High Court judgment delivered on 29 May 1989, the application being filed on 7 August 1990 — almost fourteen months late. The single Justice held that where delay is great the court must scrutinise the facts to be sure a sufficient reason exists. A mistake of counsel can excuse delay only where it amounts to an error of judgment, not neglect of plain legal requirements or inordinate delay. The delay here was inordinate and unexplained. The matter was a private contractual dispute raising no question of general public importance. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time to lodge a Notice of Appeal dismissed with costs.

Facts

The Attorney General sought to appeal a High Court judgment of Mr. Justice Kityo, delivered on 29 May 1989, which awarded the respondent contractor a decretal sum on a building contract by reference to interim certificate No. 12. The Notice of Appeal ought to have been lodged by 12 June 1989. An application to review the judgment was refused on 22 December 1989. The application to extend time to appeal was dated 7 August 1990, almost fourteen months after judgment. The applicant's affidavit material showed that the defence had been planned and the suit defended at trial, but the decision to appeal was not taken at the close of the trial. The applicant contended that the Government's case had been mishandled, that a large sum would be payable for an incomplete building, and that the matter was of public importance.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient reason was shown to extend time for lodging a Notice of Appeal which was almost fourteen months out of time.
  2. Whether the alleged public importance of the matter constituted a sufficient reason to extend time.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • Right of review within 7 days explained.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Length of Delay
Where the period of delay in lodging a notice of appeal is short and attributable to an understandable lapse of human fallibility, time may readily be extended; but where the delay is great, the court must scrutinise the facts carefully to be satisfied that a sufficient reason for the extension has been shown.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Mistake of Counsel
A mistake of counsel may amount to a sufficient reason to extend time only where it amounts to an error of judgment; neglect to ascertain and observe the plain requirements of the law, or inordinate delay on the part of an advocate, is not a sufficient reason.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Public Importance
The public importance of a question may be a sufficient reason to extend time where the public interest requires it to be decided, but this consideration is used sparingly and not where the point is important only to the parties themselves or may with little difficulty be tested in other proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Nature of Dispute
A dispute confined to the parties over the terms of a private building contract and the calculation of payment under an interim certificate raises no question of general public importance capable of justifying an extension of time.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Court of Appeal Rules r.4
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.81(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.76(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.80
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.29

Cases cited (5)

  • Gatti v Shoosmith [1939] 3 All ER 916
  • SidAH BHARIAO vs SANtaSi{ KUI"IARr (1951)
  • ci{A}ll) sHlu ... VS D. U A},IN AD.,\5 & cc, trD.
  • Esso Standard Eastern Inc v Income Tax [1971] EA 140
  • Commissioner for Transport v [...] of Uganda [1959] EA 729

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Oriental Construction Co. Limited (Civil Application 7 of 1990) [1991] UGSC 30 (18 April 1991)
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.