Wakilii

Byensi Pamela v Tusiime Emily (Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 736 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to reinstate appeal and extension of time to file memorandum of appeal
Decision
Time extended for applicant to file memorandum of appeal; applicant condemned in costs for delay

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

Held that there was no appeal to reinstate as the applicant had only filed a notice of appeal without a memorandum of appeal. However, in the interest of justice and guided by the principle that substance should prevail over procedural lapses, time was extended by five days for the applicant to lodge her appeal, despite the three-year delay and lack of credible explanation. Costs awarded to the respondent.

Outcome

Time extended for applicant to file memorandum of appeal; applicant condemned in costs for delay

Facts

The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 29 October 2020 against a judgment delivered on 15 October 2020 in Civil Suit No. 0059 of 2012. No memorandum of appeal was filed. In January 2021, the High Court ruled in HCMA No. 0079 of 2020 that there was no appeal on record to strike out as only a notice of appeal had been filed. The respondent had the lower court record returned for taxation and served a bill of costs on the applicant in May 2022. On 23 October 2023, three years after the judgment, the applicant filed this application seeking to reinstate the appeal and extend time. The applicant claimed she had instructed M/s Mutungi & Co. Advocates to file the memorandum but the managing partner died before doing so. The court found no evidence supporting this claim, noting the applicant had drawn the notice of appeal herself and was first represented by different counsel in the 2020 application.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Appeal No. 0044 of 2020 should be reinstated.
  2. Whether time within which to appeal should be extended.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Time within which the applicant can lodge her appeal is extended by 5 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • Costs of this application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Burden on Applicant
An applicant seeking extension of time to file an appeal must prove that they were prevented by sufficient cause from adhering to the statutory time limit, and the most persuasive reason is that the delay was not caused or contributed to by dilatory conduct on their own part.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal Distinguished from Memorandum of Appeal
A notice of appeal does not commence an appeal process under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; a memorandum of appeal is required to properly institute an appeal, and where only a notice has been filed, there is no appeal on record to reinstate.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Substance Over Form — Interest of Justice
In the interest of justice, courts should foster the hearing and determination of disputes on their merits rather than bar litigants for procedural lapses, unless lack of adherence to rules renders the appeal process difficult and inoperative; errors or lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from pursuit of their rights.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Ojara Otto Julius v Okwera Benson (HCMA No. 23 of 2017)
  • China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation v Bubera General Construction Ltd (HCCA No. 23 of 2020)
  • Shanit v Hindocha and others [1973] EA 207
  • Gideon Musa Onchwati v Kenya Oils Co. Ltd and another [2017] KLR 650
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Byensi Pamela v Tusiime Emily (Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 736 (14 July 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.