Wakilii

G.W. Husokl v Uganda Electricity Board (CIVIL SUIT NO. 20 89)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 119 · 1993 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by defendant for extension of time to file notice of appeal following ex parte judgment for negligence
Decision
Defendant granted extension of time to file notice of appeal within 14 days

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

Held that the defendant was prevented by sufficient reason from filing notice of appeal in time where the defendant was not served with hearing notice for delivery of judgment, learned of the judgment two days later, failed to obtain the court file or copy of judgment until 18 May 1992, and gave instructions to lawyers immediately thereafter. The defendant cannot be accused of inordinate delay where files were genuinely missing from the registry.

Outcome

Defendant granted extension of time to file notice of appeal within 14 days

Facts

The plaintiff filed a negligence suit against the defendant claiming general damages for the death of his son who died after being electrocuted by electric wires left unattended on the ground by the defendant. The defendant, although served, did not enter appearance or file defence. An interlocutory judgment was entered on 25 May 1989. The defendant did not turn up for formal proof and the case proceeded ex parte. Judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff on 27 April 1992 for UGX 12,690,000 with interest. The defendant's legal manager learned of the judgment on 30 April 1992 when he visited the High Court Registry on another matter. He requested the file to peruse it but was informed it was missing. He wrote to the Registrar on 8 May 1992 expressing concern about possible injustice. He obtained a copy of the judgment from the judge's chambers on 18 May 1992 and instructed lawyers to lodge an appeal the following day. The defendant filed this application on 19 May 1992 seeking extension of time to file notice of appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause for failing to file notice of appeal within the prescribed time.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Defendant allowed to file notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of ruling.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Notice of Appeal — Sufficient Cause
A party applying for extension of time to file notice of appeal must show sufficient reason for having failed to file the notice in time, and the expression sufficient reason relates to the inability or failure to take the particular steps in time although other considerations may be invoked.
Civil Procedure — Service of Hearing Notice — Judgment — Ex Parte Proceedings
Where judgment is reserved and not delivered immediately, both parties should be served with hearing notice for delivery of judgment under Order 18 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, regardless of whether the case proceeded ex parte or a party entered appearance.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Non-Service of Hearing Notice
Where a party is not served with hearing notice for delivery of judgment and is not present when judgment is delivered, and subsequently fails to obtain the court file or copy of judgment due to the file being genuinely missing from the registry, sufficient cause exists for extending time to file notice of appeal where the party gives instructions to lawyers immediately upon obtaining the judgment.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Attorney General v Mapata and Another [1991] ULSLA 110
  • Katumba v Muwanga [1991] ULSLA 117
  • National Pharmacy Limited v Kampala City Council (1979)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

G.W. Husokl v Uganda Electricity Board (CIVIL SUIT NO. 20_89) [1993] UGHC 119 (27 April 1993)
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.