Wakilii

Bulwadda Kizito v Muluba Farm Limited and Another (Civil Application 92 of 2003)

Court of Appeal · [2003] UGCA 24 · 2003 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time within which to lodge an appeal against a High Court decision
Decision
Extension of time granted; applicant directed to lodge appeal within 30 days from 30 September 2003

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 Court of Appeal (single judge) held that an adjournment may not properly be sought from court in writing; counsel must appear in person or arrange for the brief to be held, and the reason advanced was insufficient as the Court of Appeal takes precedence over the High Court. The application therefore proceeded ex parte. On the merits, the Court held that the negligence or dilatory conduct of an advocate should not be visited on a diligent client. The applicant had instructed his lawyers promptly and was not to blame for the delay. Sufficient cause having been shown, time to lodge the appeal was extended by 30 days.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; applicant directed to lodge appeal within 30 days from 30 September 2003

Facts

The applicant had sued the respondents in the High Court in HCCS No. 393 of 1995. Justice Tabaro dismissed the suit on 6 September 2002. Aggrieved, the applicant promptly instructed his lawyers, M/s Mwesigwa Rukutana Advocates, to commence the appeal. They filed a notice of appeal on 16 September 2002 but took no further steps. The applicant withdrew instructions and engaged M/s Birungi & Co Advocates in October 2002, who drew a memorandum of appeal but did nothing more. On 14 July 2003 the applicant discovered at the court registry that his appeal had not been lodged. He withdrew instructions again and engaged new advocates who advised seeking an extension of time, leading to this application. The applicant had at all stages instructed his lawyers promptly and within time; the delay was caused by the dilatory conduct of the advocates he engaged.

Issues

  1. Whether the request for an adjournment made in writing by the respondents' counsel should be granted.
  2. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause to justify an extension of time within which to lodge his appeal.

Orders

  • Request for adjournment declined.
  • Application heard ex parte under rule 55(2).
  • Application for extension of time allowed.
  • Applicant's appeal to be lodged within 30 days from 30 September 2003.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Application Made in Writing — Impropriety
An adjournment may not properly be sought from court in writing; counsel wishing to seek an adjournment must appear in person or instruct another to hold the brief for the purpose of applying.
Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Sufficient Cause — Precedence of Court of Appeal over High Court
Counsel's prior engagement in an appeal before the High Court does not constitute sufficient cause for an adjournment of proceedings in the Court of Appeal, which takes precedence over the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time to Appeal — Sufficient Cause — Negligence of Advocate
Where an applicant has instructed his lawyers in time, his right to appeal should not be blocked by the lawyer's negligence or omission to comply with the requirements of the law; such blunders of the legal profession should not be visited on a diligent client.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.4
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(2)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.82
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.55(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Paul Masiga v Toro & Mityana Tea Co. Ltd (Civil Application No. 79 of 1999)
  • Alhaji Ziraf Balyejusa v Development Finance Co. Ltd (Civil Application No. 34 of 2000)
  • Haji Mardin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bulwadda Kizito v Muluba Farm Limited and Another (Civil Application 92 of 2003) [2003] UGCA 24 (3 October 2003)
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.