Wakilii

Grace Nakyomu v Kasalina Zawedde and Another (Miscellaneous Application No.145 of 2003)

Court of Appeal · [2004] UGCA 64 · 2004 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enlargement of time within which to lodge an appeal
Decision
Application for enlargement of time dismissed with costs to the first respondent

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 dismissed an application for enlargement of time to lodge a notice of appeal. The applicant alleged her counsel had assured her the appeal was filed but had not done so, causing a delay of almost two years. The court held that for enlargement of time to be granted, an applicant must show sufficient reason for being prevented from taking the right step at the right time. While a litigant should not ordinarily suffer for counsel's mistakes except in exceptional circumstances, the applicant herself did nothing to verify whether her instructions had been carried out. The delay was inexcusable and not satisfactorily explained, so no sufficient reason was established.

Outcome

Application for enlargement of time dismissed with costs to the first respondent

Facts

The applicant, together with her two sisters, filed a High Court suit claiming recovery of land at Kyabakuza estate, Masaka District, which had belonged to their late father whose estate they administered. They alleged the late Paulo Muwanga had fraudulently registered himself as proprietor, and sued his legal representative (first respondent) and the former Chief Registrar of Titles (second respondent), alleged to have connived in the transfer. The High Court (Bossa J.) dismissed the suit on 12 January 2002. The applicant sought to appeal and claimed she had instructed counsel to file a notice of appeal, who assured her this had been done. She visited his chambers monthly but in November 2003, on a friend's advice, checked the registry and found no notice of appeal had been filed. She lodged this application on 18 December 2003, almost two years after the judgment, seeking enlargement of time to lodge an appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established sufficient reason to justify enlargement of time within which to lodge a notice of appeal.
  2. Whether the alleged mistake or failure of the applicant's counsel to file the notice of appeal constituted sufficient cause for the delay.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the first respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Sufficient Cause for Delay
For an application for enlargement of time to succeed, the applicant must show that she was prevented from taking the right step at the right time for sufficient reason; where the period of delay is great, the court must scrutinise the facts more carefully to be sure that sufficient reason exists.
Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Mistake of Counsel
The mistake, faults, lapses or dilatory conduct of counsel should not be visited on a litigant except in exceptional circumstances; however, a litigant who relies on such conduct must also have taken reasonable steps to verify that her instructions were carried out.
Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Merits of Intended Appeal
The fact that an appeal is likely to succeed cannot of itself amount to sufficient cause for the grant of an enlargement of time.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Attorney General v Oriental Construction Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1990)
  • Attorney General v Madatali Nazarali Mulji Huda & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1988)
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobede (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1987)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Grace Nakyomu v Kasalina Zawedde and Another (Miscellaneous Application No.145 of 2003) [2004] UGCA 64 (27 January 2004)
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.