Wakilii

Eriasafani Mudumba v Wilberforce Kuluse (Civil Application No. 34 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1997] UGCA 2 · 1997 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to extend time within which to file an appeal against an appellate judgment of the High Court
Decision
Application for extension of time granted; applicant given 30 days to file his appeal

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 held that delay by the court in preparing and delivering a copy of the proceedings constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, provided the applicant did not contribute to the delay. The applicant had given notice of appeal and requested the record in time but waited nearly three years for the court to supply it. Poverty alone is not sufficient reason, but the applicant had exercised due diligence and the further delay was attributable to his Legal Aid lawyer, not himself. The affidavit was neither false nor fatally defective, as Article 126(2)(e) directs that substantive justice be administered without undue regard to technicalities. The application was allowed.

Outcome

Application for extension of time granted; applicant given 30 days to file his appeal

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent in a kibanja (land) dispute before a Magistrate Grade II at Nawonyaoo, Kamuli. He lost, appealed successfully to the Chief Magistrate at Jinja, and a retrial was ordered. The Magistrate Grade I again ruled against him. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed by Justice G.M. Kat1 on 1 July 1993. He lodged a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court on 14 July 1993 and requested a copy of the proceedings on 15 July 1993, both within the prescribed thirty days. The copy was not supplied until 28 May 1996, a delay of about three years. When he sought to file his appeal in 1996 he was directed to the newly established Court of Appeal, where he was told his appeal was out of time. He had run out of money, sought Legal Aid assistance, and experienced further delay caused by an assigned lawyer, Mr. Olubwe, who failed to release documents to the new lawyer, Mr. Kafuko-Ntuyo, until August 1997.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to justify an extension of time within which to file his appeal.
  2. Whether delay caused by the court in preparing and delivering a copy of the proceedings constitutes sufficient reason.
  3. Whether poverty constitutes sufficient reason for failure to take a step in time.
  4. Whether the applicant's supporting affidavit was false or defective and should be struck out.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant given 30 days within which to file his appeal.
  • Costs of this application shall be costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason under Court of Appeal Rules rule 4
The expression "sufficient reason" in rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules must relate to the inability or failure to take the particular step in time, although other considerations may also be invoked.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Delay by Court in Supplying Proceedings
Delay caused by the court in preparing and delivering a copy of the proceedings applied for constitutes sufficient reason for an extension of time, provided the applicant did not contribute to the delay.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Poverty as a Ground
Poverty does not constitute sufficient reason or excuse for failure to take a particular step in time, since the rules provide for waiver of court fees and pauper appeals.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Due Diligence and Denial of Justice
Where an applicant has exercised all due diligence and done all in his power to take the step in time but was prevented through no fault of his own, it would, in the absence of special circumstances, be a denial of justice not to extend the specified period.
Evidence — Affidavits — Failure to Distinguish Knowledge from Belief
Failure to state which paragraphs of an affidavit are deponed on knowledge and which on belief, where the grounds of belief are otherwise stated, is a technicality that does not render the affidavit fatally defective, in light of the constitutional directive that substantive justice be administered without undue regard to technicalities.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • National Pharmacy Ltd vs. KCC (1979) HCB 132
  • Mugo and others vs Wanjiru and Another (1970) EA 481 at 483
  • B B Shah vs. D. Jamnadas Co. Ltd (1959) EA 838 at page 840
  • Uganda vs Severino Orveda Civil Application No. 3 of 1986 (Court of Appeal) unreported
  • Bhatt vs Tejwant Singh (1962) EA 497
  • B.N. Bhatt vs Tijwant Singh and Anor (page 495)
  • Bakitara Transport Bus Co. Ltd vs Birabonwa (1979) HCB 92

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Eriasafani Mudumba v Wilberforce Kuluse (Civil Application No. 34 of 1997) [1997] UGCA 2 (1 October 1997)
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.