Wakilii

Clouds 10 Limited v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Limited (Civil Appeal 35 of 1992)

Supreme Court · [1992] UGSC 28 · 1992 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the full Supreme Court for review of a single Judge's order refusing leave to appeal out of time and to extend time to serve the notice of appeal
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs; the single Judge's ruling refusing extension of time stands

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (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 5 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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

On an application to review a single Judge's refusal to extend time to serve a notice of appeal and to appeal out of time, the Court held that it will not overrule the single Judge's exercise of discretion unless it proceeded on a wrong principle of law or was plainly wrong. An advocate's error may sometimes constitute sufficient reason, but the inordinate and largely unexplained delay here — including a period in which no expeditious or relevant action was taken — was not sufficient reason. Non-payment of fees by the client did not excuse the failure to serve the notice of appeal in time. The application for review was dismissed and the single Judge's ruling stood.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs; the single Judge's ruling refusing extension of time stands

Facts

The intending appellant sought to appeal a High Court judgment delivered on 12 July 1991. A notice of appeal was filed but, contrary to the Rules, was not served on the respondent within the prescribed time. The previous advocate later declined to provide information because the intending appellant had not paid outstanding fees, and the present advocate took over the matter around early September 1991. The present advocate spent about 25 days in September, took no expeditious or relevant action between 1 October and 12 November 1991, and only on 19 November 1991 applied to a single Judge to extend the time to serve the notice of appeal and to appeal out of time. The single Judge refused the application, finding the advocate had not acted with expedition. The intending appellant then applied to the full Court to review that refusal.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient reason was shown to extend the time within which to serve the notice of appeal and to appeal out of time.
  2. Whether an advocate's negligence or non-payment of fees can amount to sufficient reason to extend time.
  3. Whether the full Court should interfere with a single Judge's exercise of discretion refusing the extension of time.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Ruling of the single Judge to stand.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason for Appeal Out of Time
An application to extend the time for serving a notice of appeal or to appeal out of time must be made at the earliest opportunity and supported by sufficient reason; inordinate and unexplained delay is not sufficient reason.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Advocate's Negligence and Non-payment of Fees
While an advocate's error may in some cases amount to sufficient reason for extending time, an advocate's failure to act expeditiously, and a client's non-payment of fees, do not of themselves constitute sufficient reason to excuse delay in serving a notice of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Review of Single Judge's Discretion — Scope of Interference
The full Court will not overrule a single Judge's exercise of discretion on an application for extension of time unless the discretion was exercised on a wrong principle of law, on a misapprehension as to the facts, or the decision was plainly wrong.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.75(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.76(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.78
  • Supreme Court Rules r.85(1)(b)

Cases cited (2)

  • SSII VS ... CONCRETE CO. (1959) EA 129
  • RUTACNAND SHAH VS ... (19..) EA 846

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

Clouds 10 Limited v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Limited (Civil Appeal 35 of 1992) [1992] UGSC 28 (1 December 1992)
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.