Wakilii

Ayima Swali and Another v Lebuga Rasul Juma (Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 967 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment
Decision
Application for leave to appeal out of time 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

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal out of time. The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, as they had received the judgment within the statutory appeal period but delayed instructing counsel. The court validated the respondent's affidavit in reply filed out of time, finding no prejudice to the applicants. The applicants' claim that their right of appeal was not explained was contradicted by the lower court record.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed

Facts

The applicants sought leave to appeal out of time against a judgment of the Chief Magistrate's Court of Yumbe delivered on 4 February 2025 in Civil Suit No. 9 of 2022. The applicants claimed they did not receive a copy of the typed judgment on the day of delivery and that their right of appeal was not explained to them. They obtained a copy of the judgment on 12 February 2025 but did not instruct counsel until 10 March 2025, after the 30-day appeal period had expired. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the lower court had properly explained the right of appeal and that the applicants' delay was due to negligence. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the respondent's affidavit in reply being filed out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to grant the application for leave to appeal out of time.
  2. Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply filed out of time should be struck off the record.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal Out of Time — Sufficient Cause
An application for leave to appeal out of time requires the applicant to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, which must be related to the inability or failure to take the required step within the prescribed time. Dilatory conduct by the applicant in instructing counsel, where the judgment was received within the appeal period, does not constitute sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Determination
A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. Where a preliminary objection is capable of disposing of the matter, it is judicious to determine it before embarking on the merits.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Filing Out of Time — Court's Discretion to Validate
An affidavit in reply filed outside the 15-day period prescribed by Order 12 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is out of time and requires leave of court. However, the court may exercise its discretion to validate such an affidavit where no prejudice is caused to the opposite party that cannot be remedied by an appropriate order as to costs, and where the respondent has shown interest in defending the matter.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (13)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 697
  • Quick Enterprises Ltd v Kenya Airways Corporation (High Court Civil Case No. 22 of 1999)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Rajesh Kumar v Mahmood Somani (Miscellaneous Cause No. 62 of 2018)
  • Dr Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2016)
  • Tiberio Okeny and Another v Attorney General and 2 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)
  • Ojara Otto Julius v Okwera Benson (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2017)
  • Bishop Jacinto Kibuuka v The Uganda Catholic Lawyers Society and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 696 of 2018)
  • The Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam vs The Chairman Bunju Village Government & Others
  • Gideon Mosa Onchwati v Kenya Oil Co Ltd and Another [2017] KLR
  • Parimal vs Veena
  • Geoffrey Nangumya T/a Nangumya & Co Advocates v Security Plus (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 858 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ayima Swali and Another v Lebuga Rasul Juma (Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 967 (3 September 2025)
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.