Wakilii

Iriso v Okurut (Miscellaneous Application 39 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 786 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file memorandum of appeal out of time arising from Kumi Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2022
Decision
Application for leave to file memorandum of appeal out of time dismissed with costs to 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

Court dismissed application for leave to appeal out of time where applicant was present when the lower court delivered its ruling but delayed nearly one year before filing the application. Applicant failed to prove sufficient cause where the record showed he was aware of the ruling, sought to pay costs, and only filed the appeal application as an afterthought when faced with execution proceedings.

Outcome

Application for leave to file memorandum of appeal out of time dismissed with costs to respondent

Facts

The applicant sought leave to file a memorandum of appeal out of time against a judgment delivered on 31 May 2022 in Kumi Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2022. The applicant claimed he was not informed of the judgment date and only became aware of it on 20 February 2023. The respondent contended that the applicant was present when judgment was delivered. Court records confirmed the applicant was present on 31 May 2022 when the ruling was delivered. On 2 February 2023, the applicant appeared before the Magistrate's Court facing a notice to show cause for non-payment of costs, at which point he acknowledged hearing the pronouncement of judgment but said he had not obtained a copy. He undertook to pay costs of UGX 3,680,000 within one and a half months but failed to do so. The applicant filed this application on 20 March 2023, nearly one year after the ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant the grant of leave to file a memorandum of appeal out of time.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Test for Good Cause
An order for enlargement of time to file an appeal should ordinarily be granted unless the applicant is guilty of unexplained and inordinate delay in seeking the indulgence of the court or has not presented a reasonable explanation for failure to file the appeal within the time prescribed by law.
Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Sufficient Reason
For an application for enlargement of time to succeed, the applicant must demonstrate good cause showing that justice warrants such an extension. The sufficient reason must relate to the inability or failure to take a particular step in time.
Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Factors to Consider
In determining whether to grant enlargement of time, courts consider whether sufficient reason related to the failure to take a step within prescribed time has been shown; whether the administration of justice requires that the dispute be decided on the merits; whether counsel's mistakes amount to errors of judgment rather than inordinate delay or negligence; and whether the applicant was guilty of dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Inordinate Delay
Where an applicant was present when judgment was delivered, was aware of its contents, and delayed nearly one year before seeking leave to appeal, filing the application only as an afterthought when faced with execution proceedings, the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause warranting the grant of enlargement of time.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (9)

  • Tight Security Ltd v Chartis Uganda Insurance Company Limited and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2014)
  • Mugo v Wanjiri [1970] EA 481
  • Pinnacle Projects Limited v Business In Motion Consultants Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)
  • Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdner Bank [1971] EA 17
  • G M Combined (U) Limited v A K Detergents (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
  • Tiberio Atwooma Okeny and Another v Attorney General and Two Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Iriso v Okurut (Miscellaneous Application 39 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 786 (27 August 2024)
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.