Fatemabai Fazlehussein Patwa v Haruna Enterprises (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1090 of 2025)

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.

Holding

The High Court granted the application to enlarge time for filing an affidavit in reply where the applicant, a UK resident, demonstrated sufficient cause by showing that scheduling constraints with a Notary Public during public and school holidays prevented timely affirmation. The court validated the affidavit filed three days late, finding that the applicant acted diligently and without dilatory conduct.

Outcome

Application granted; affidavit in reply validated

Facts

The applicant, a UK resident, was served with a notice of motion on 3 April 2025. She was required to file an affidavit in reply by 18 April 2025, which fell on Good Friday, a public holiday, making the effective deadline 22 April 2025. The applicant began preparing her affidavit immediately but required affirmation before a Notary Public in the UK. Due to the Easter holiday period and school holidays, notarial services were limited and the earliest available appointment was 25 April 2025. The applicant affirmed and filed her affidavit on that date, three days after the deadline. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the delay was not justified and that the applicant could have planned better or sought alternative notaries.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicant has shown sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretion to enlarge time.
2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• The Applicant's affidavit in reply in respect of Miscellaneous Application No. 1869 of 2024 filed on 25th April, 2025, is hereby validated.
• Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 51 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 5(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 12 rule 3(2)

Cases cited (13)

• Oriental Insurance Brokers Ltd v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
• Oryema Sam Baker v Okole Ismail (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 27 of 2011)
• Solomon Champlain Lui & Another v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 766 of 2016)
• Surgipharm (U) Limited v Uganda Investment Authority & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 65 of 2021)
• Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 07 of 2016)
• Labu Saidi Chepchulei v Ocen Ambrose & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2022)
• Stop & See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
• Elias Waziri & 2 Others v Opportunity Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 599 of 2013)
• Teberio Okeny & Another v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)
• Hadondi Daniel v Yolamu Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2023)
• Gideon Mosa Onchwati Vs Kenya Oil Co. Ltd and Another [2017] eKLR 30
• Parimal Vs Veena Alias Bhati, [2011] 3 SCC 545
• Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership v Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2024)

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