Wakilii

E. Musisi and Others v State Wide Insurance Co. Limited (Civil Application No 1 of 1989)

Supreme Court · [1990] UGSC 27 · 1990 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for extension of time within which to lodge a record of appeal in an intended interlocutory appeal
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs; the intended interlocutory appeal could not proceed out of time

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

On an application to extend time to lodge a record of appeal, the Supreme Court held that an intending appellant must show sufficient cause under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, and that where the appeal is interlocutory the applicant must act with special urgency so the trial is not prejudiced. Although delay in producing a legible typed record was partly caused by the court registry, the applicant did not act diligently: he failed to apply promptly for an extension or a certificate of delay, and could have lodged the available though imperfect record earlier. The application was not brought expeditiously and was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs; the intended interlocutory appeal could not proceed out of time

Facts

The High Court ruling sought to be appealed, rejecting a preliminary objection on the competence of the court to hear the suit, was delivered on 7 July 1988. Leave to appeal was granted and a notice of appeal filed in time on 14 July 1988. The applicant applied for copies of the proceedings and judgment on 11 July 1988. A typed copy of the record was supplied on 9 March 1989, but counsel considered it unintelligible and unsuitable, and sought a better copy, supplying his own stationery and arranging for re-typing by another judge's secretary, which caused further delay. The registry was understaffed and slow. The applicant did not apply for an extension of time or a certificate of delay at that point, and brought the present application only in December 1989. The underlying suit had been commenced in 1985 and, being interlocutory, the appeal threatened to prolong the trial.

Issues

  1. Whether the intending appellant showed sufficient cause under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to justify an extension of time within which to lodge the record of appeal.
  2. Whether delay attributable to the court registry excuses an applicant in an interlocutory appeal who has not himself acted diligently.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time to Lodge Record of Appeal — Requirement of Sufficient Cause
An intending appellant seeking an extension of time to lodge a record of appeal must show sufficient cause under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules before the court will exercise its discretion to grant further time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Interlocutory Appeals — Duty of Special Urgency
Where the intended appeal is interlocutory, sufficient cause must be assessed in light of the heightened duty to bring the appeal forward as quickly as possible, because the longer an interlocutory appeal intervenes the greater the risk that the trial will be prejudiced.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Registry Delay and Applicant's Diligence
Delay attributable to the court registry does not excuse an applicant who has failed to act diligently, for example by not promptly applying for an extension of time or a certificate of delay, or by declining to lodge an available though imperfect record.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Mistake of Advocate as a Special Reason
A mistake of an advocate alone, where the client is blameless and the advocate has taken steps to put the mistake right, may amount to a special reason for indulgence; but it will not avail where speed is essential, as in an interlocutory appeal, and the mistake must then be considered unjustified.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Court of Appeal Rules Rule 4
  • Court of Appeal Rules Rule 81(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Rule 81(2)

Cases cited (1)

  • per Lord Greene M.R. (1939) 1 K.B. (case name illegible in source — severe OCR corruption)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

E. Musisi and Others v State Wide Insurance Co. Limited (Civil Application No 1 of 1989) [1990] UGSC 27 (9 April 1990)
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.