Isingoma and Another v Asiimwe and Others (Civil Application No. 33 of 1997)

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.

Holding

On an application under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules for extension of time to file a notice of appeal, the court held that it has discretion to extend time where sufficient cause is shown, and that such cause must relate to the inability to take the necessary step within the prescribed period. The court found that the applicant had instructed her lawyers in time and lodged a notice of appeal within time, but the lawyers failed to file the record of appeal while pursuing settlement negotiations. Following established authority, the error of counsel was not necessarily a bar to obtaining an extension. The applicant was not guilty of dilatory conduct and had shown sufficient cause. The application was granted with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time to file notice of appeal granted with costs

Facts

The High Court delivered judgment in a land dispute at Fort Portal on 23 August 1994, with which the applicant was dissatisfied. She instructed her lawyers, M/S Hunter & Greig Advocates, who lodged a notice of appeal on 29 August 1994, within time. Thereafter the lawyers commenced negotiations with the opposing party with a view to an out-of-court settlement. During the negotiations, Mr Jonathan Kateera, who was handling the applicant's case, died. The applicant then instructed another firm, M/S Kasinye, Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates, which continued the negotiations. When the negotiations proved futile, the time within which to file the record of appeal had expired, and the court system had changed so that appeals from the High Court had to go to the Court of Appeal first. The applicant accordingly applied for an extension of time, contending that her counsel's failure to file the appeal in time, despite being instructed in time, constituted sufficient cause.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause to justify an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
2. Whether the fault of the applicant's counsel in failing to file the appeal in time can be visited on the applicant.

Orders

• Application for extension of time granted.
• Costs awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Court of Appeal Rules (Directions), 1996 rule 4

Cases cited (3)

• Clouds 10 Ltd, Civil application No. 35 of
• Saloti and others Vs Sakuli [1968] EA 218
• Ben Kiwuttuko Vs Hajji Nurdin Mulovu, Civil application No. 17 of 1990 (SC) unreported

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