Wakilii

Executrix of the Estate of the Late Tebajjukira andd Another v stanazi neol (Civil Application 8 of 1988)

Supreme Court · [1988] UGSC 5 · 1988 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single judge of the Supreme Court under rule 4 of the Rules for extension of time within which to file the record of appeal.
Decision
Application for extension of time allowed; applicants granted fourteen days within which to file the appeal.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations steady — 14 citing cases on record, 6 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 under rule 4 for extension of time, the court need not first strike out the incompetent appeal; indeed a single judge has no jurisdiction to strike out a notice of appeal, and the court was properly seized of the extension application. An applicant must show sufficient reason for failing to file in time. Although counsel filed a defective record before the decree was extracted, the delay was caused mainly by the respondent's counsel and the Deputy Registrar, not by the applicants. It would be wrong to penalise diligent applicants for the court's mistake. The applicants showed sufficient reason; the application was allowed and fourteen days' extension granted.

Outcome

Application for extension of time allowed; applicants granted fourteen days within which to file the appeal.

Facts

The applicants sought to appeal a High Court judgment (Mukanza J., 16 October 1987) in Civil Suit No. 99 of 1987. They filed a notice of appeal on 19 October 1987. The Deputy Registrar certified the record of proceedings complete on 28 March 1988, and counsel's firm filed the record of appeal the same day, but before a decree had been extracted. On discovering this, counsel required the respondent to extract the decree. The decree was drafted by the respondent's counsel and approved by the Deputy Registrar on 15 April 1988, but it omitted one of the two plots that were the subject matter of the suit. On 25 May 1988 the applicants filed a supplementary record containing the decree. The extracted decree was later found not to tally with the judgment and was rectified by the Deputy Registrar under the slip rule in August 1988. The applicants then applied for extension of time within which to file the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether an incompetent appeal must be struck out before the court can entertain an application for extension of time to file the appeal.
  2. Whether the applicants showed sufficient cause for an extension of time within which to file the record of appeal.
  3. Whether a mistake or negligence of counsel can amount to sufficient reason for extending time.
  4. What the legal effect is of an order extending time on a document already lodged in court out of time.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicants granted an extension of fourteen (14) days from the date of the ruling within which to file the appeal.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Competence — Requirement of an Extracted Decree
No appeal lies until the decree or order appealed from has been extracted; the record of appeal must contain a copy of the decree or order appealed from, and failure to include it renders the appeal incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Records of Appeal — Supplementary Record
A decree or order is a primary document and not a supplementary one, and therefore cannot validly be filed as part of a supplementary record of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Jurisdiction of a Single Judge
A single judge has no jurisdiction to strike out a notice of appeal or an appeal; consequently an incompetent appeal need not first be struck out before the court entertains an application for extension of time within which to lodge the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause
An applicant for extension of time to file an appeal must satisfy the court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from adhering to the time limit; the sufficient reason must relate to his inability to take the particular step in the first instance.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Mistake or Negligence of Counsel
A mistake or negligence of counsel is not necessarily a bar to obtaining an extension of time; however, where the rules clearly require a decree to be extracted before the appeal is lodged, an error of judgment by counsel may not in itself afford sufficient reason for the extension.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Delay Caused by the Court or Opposing Party
Where the delay is caused or contributed to by the court or by the opposing party rather than by the applicant's own dilatory conduct, it would be wrong to penalise a diligent applicant for that delay.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Effect of Order on Documents Already Lodged
Where the time for lodging a document is extended, the document is duly lodged if lodged within the extended time, whether the actual lodging was before or after the order of extension; the effect of the order is to validate or excuse the late filing.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Court of Appeal Rules 1972 r.4
  • Rules of the Court r.11
  • Rules of the Court r.57(c)
  • Rules of the Court r.81
  • Rules of the Court r.85(1)(h)

Cases cited (17)

  • Kyamulabi v Zirondomu, Civil Application No. 41/79 (1980) H.C.B. 11
  • National Pharmacy v Kampala City Council, Civil Application No. 5/79 (1979) H.C.B. 132
  • Bakitara Transport Bus Co. Ltd v Diribonza, Civil Application No. 7/79 (1979) H.C.B. 95
  • Kisange and Mwudo Slcat (Ltd) v H.A. Nathwani (1952) E.A. 160
  • Mukasa v Ocholi (1968) E.A. 89
  • Sebei v Solanki (1968) E.A. 818
  • Farrab Incorporated v The Official Receiver and Provisional Liquidator (1959) E.A. 5
  • Commissioner of Transport v Attorney General of Uganda (1959) E.A. 729
  • Kiboro v Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (1974) E.A. 155
  • Barclays Bank of Uganda v Eddie (Rodrigues?), Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1987 (C.A.) (unreported)
  • Gatti v Shoosmith (1939) 3 All E.R. 916
  • Shabir Din v Ram Parkash Anand (1955) 22 E.A.C.A. 48
  • Ngoni-Matengo Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd v Alimohamed Osman (1959) E.A. 577
  • Gosaul v Solanki (1963) E.A. (page illegible)
  • Mugo v (party illegible) (1970) E.A. 481
  • Shanti v Hindocha & Others (1973) E.A. 207
  • Batt v (party illegible) (1939) E.A. (page illegible)

Cases citing this judgment (14)

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.

Executrix of the Estate of the Late Tebajjukira andd Another v stanazi neol (Civil Application 8 of 1988) [1988] UGSC 5 (4 November 1988)
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.