Wakilii

Haji Asuman Busulwa Ssalongo v Uganda (Misc.App.No.11 of 1999)

Court of Appeal · [1999] UGCA 22 · 1999 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time within which to apply for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court, arising from Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1999
Decision
Application for extension of time granted; applicant to file application for a certificate within 7 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

The applicant sought extension of time to apply for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court, the delay being caused mainly by the failure of the firm of advocates instructed in time to apply for the certificate. The court held that under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, extension may be granted where sufficient reason is shown, and that reason must relate to the applicant's failure to act in time. Since the applicant had instructed advocates promptly, the delay was attributable to the advocates' fault, which cannot be visited on the applicant. Sufficient reason having been shown, the application was allowed and the applicant given 7 days to file his application for a certificate.

Outcome

Application for extension of time granted; applicant to file application for a certificate within 7 days

Facts

The applicant had been a party to Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1999 and sought to appeal to the Supreme Court. A firm of advocates was instructed in time to handle the appeal and filed a Notice of Appeal but did not apply for a certificate of appeal from the Court of Appeal within the required time. The applicant himself was also ignorant of the requirement to apply for the certificate within time. The applicant subsequently brought an application for extension of time within which to apply for the certificate. The application was supported by an affidavit of counsel and was not opposed by an affidavit in reply, though the State contended that no reasonable prospect of success of the intended appeal had been demonstrated.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient reason was shown to grant an extension of time within which to apply for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the fault of the applicant's advocate in failing to apply for a certificate within time can be visited on the applicant.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant to file his application for a certificate within 7 days from the date of this ruling.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason Requirement
Under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, an extension of time may be granted only where sufficient reason is shown, and such reason must relate to the failure by the applicant to act within time; where the applicant is found guilty of delay, extension shall not be granted.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Fault of Advocate Not Visited on Applicant
Where an applicant has instructed a firm of advocates in time and the delay results from the advocates' failure to take the necessary steps, the fault of the advocate cannot be visited on the applicant, and this constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 (Legal Notice No. 11 of 1996) r.4
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 (Legal Notice No. 11 of 1996) r.40(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 (Legal Notice No. 11 of 1996) r.40(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 (Legal Notice No. 11 of 1996) r.41(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 (Legal Notice No. 11 of 1996) r.42(1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Andrew Gitau Kimani Vs Uganda [1992-93] HCB 1

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Haji Asuman Busulwa Ssalongo v Uganda (Misc.App.No.11 of 1999) [1999] UGCA 22 (28 July 1999)
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.