Wakilii

Bishari v Vitaform Limited (Civil Application 6 of 1993)

Supreme Court · [1994] UGSC 39 · 1994 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for enlargement of time within which to serve the notice, memorandum and record of appeal on the respondent
Decision
Application granted; time extended for the applicant to serve the appeal documents on the respondent within seven days.

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 single Justice considered whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason to extend the time for serving the appeal documents on the respondent. The discretion to extend time is wide, limited only by the requirement of sufficient reason, and the applicant must satisfactorily explain the delay. Here the delay was caused by the negligence and dilatory conduct of the applicant's successive advocates, who having filed a notice of appeal failed to serve it in time, and not by the applicant, who as a layman was entitled to rely on his counsel. Penalising the applicant for his advocates' negligence would be unjust and no injustice would be caused to the respondent. The application was allowed.

Outcome

Application granted; time extended for the applicant to serve the appeal documents on the respondent within seven days.

Facts

After judgment was entered against the applicant in the High Court (Berko J) in Civil Suit No. 301 of 1989, the applicant instructed advocates to appeal. A notice of appeal was filed, but owing to misunderstandings the applicant changed advocates, and the successive firms failed to serve the notice, memorandum and record of appeal on the respondent within the prescribed time. The applicant explained that the failure arose because his advocates did not know the address of the respondent's counsel and, on the respondent's account, because professional fees had not been paid. The applicant applied for enlargement of time, contending that the failure was attributable to his advocates and not to him, and that the appeal had been properly instituted so that extension would cause no undue injustice to the respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason for the court to exercise its discretion to extend the time within which to serve the notice, memorandum and record of appeal on the respondent.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The applicant to serve the notice of appeal, the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal on the respondent within seven days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs of the application to be costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient reason
The power to enlarge the time for taking a step in an appeal is a very wide discretion limited only by the requirement of sufficient reason; each case turns on its own facts, and the applicant must satisfactorily explain the delay, which normally relates to an inability or failure to take a particular step in time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Negligence of advocates
Where the failure to take a necessary procedural step in time is caused by the negligence or dilatory conduct of the applicant's advocates rather than the applicant himself, the applicant should not be penalised, because a litigant, particularly a layman, is entitled to rely on his advocates to carry out his instructions to their conclusion.

Cases cited (3)

  • Mukoo v [illegible] (1970) EA 481
  • Uganda [illegible] v Ahmed Ziro[ndorua], Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1979 (1980) HCB
  • Zagiru [illegible] & Another v Sulei[man] [illegible], Civil Application No. 2 of 1992

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bishari v Vitaform Limited (Civil Application 6 of 1993) [1994] UGSC 39 (10 May 1994)
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.