Isaac Bishari v Vitafoam (Civil Application No. 2 of 1994)

Observed later treatment

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

On an application for extension of time to serve the notice, memorandum and record of appeal, the court held that the applicant must satisfactorily explain the delay, which must relate to the failure to take a particular step in time, and must show the delay was not caused by his own dilatory conduct. Here the failure to serve was due to the negligence and dilatory conduct of the applicant's two former firms of advocates, not the applicant, who as a litigant was entitled to rely on his counsel's assurances. It would be unfair and unjust to penalise the applicant for his advocates' negligence, and no injustice would be caused to the respondent. The application was allowed.

Outcome

Application for extension of time allowed; applicant granted seven days within which to serve the appeal documents on the respondent

Facts

Following a High Court judgment (Berko J) dated 4 October 1991 in Civil Suit No. 301 of 1989 entered against him, the applicant instructed his advocates, M/S Musambu & Co., to appeal. A notice of appeal was filed in the High Court on 4 October 1991, but owing to misunderstandings the applicant later instructed a new firm, M/S Mayanja Nkangi & Co. The record of appeal was lodged in the Supreme Court within time, but the notice of appeal, memorandum of appeal and record of appeal were not served on the respondent's counsel. The applicant's advocates variously attributed the failure to not knowing the location of the respondent's counsel's chambers and to the applicant's non-payment of professional fees, the second firm having declined to take further steps. The respondent's counsel disputed that the chambers' location was unknown, contending there had been dilatory conduct by both the applicant and his counsel. The applicant, having engaged a third firm, applied for extension of time to effect service.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the court to exercise its discretion to extend the time within which to serve the relevant appeal documents on the respondent.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• The applicant to serve the notice of appeal, the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal on the respondent within seven days from the date of the ruling.
• Costs of the application to be costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Rules of the Supreme Court (rules governing extension of time and service of appeal documents)

Cases cited (5)

• Nuwo v. Waniru (1970) EA 491
• Bhatt v. Tejwant Singh (1962) E.A. 497
• Shanti v. Hundocha and Others (1971) E.A. 207
• Mary Korondabi v. Mark Lubega, Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1979 (1980) H.C.B 11
• Zaina ... & Another v. Sulaiman Lule, Civil Application No. 2 of 1992

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• David Nsubuga and 3 Others v Maggret Kamuje (Civil Application No.31 of 1997)

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