Wakilii

James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises Ltd v Kampala City Council & Another (Civil Application 9 of 2017)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 2 · 2018 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for extension of time within which to serve a notice of appeal
Decision
Application granted; time for serving the notice of appeal extended by three days, validating the notice of appeal and the appeal, with costs of the application ordered personally against the applicant's advocates

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

On an application under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules to extend time to serve a notice of appeal served three days out of time, the single Justice held that 'sufficient reason' is a matter of the court's unfettered discretion, encompassing either a reason that prevented the essential step being taken in time or other reasons why the intended appeal should proceed, and that an extension may be granted where shutting out the appeal would cause injustice. Although the application was itself filed nearly four months later and counsel's evidence of court delay was uncorroborated and carelessly presented, the court extended time by three days to validate the notice of appeal and the appeal, the subject matter being prime city property requiring determination on the merits.

Outcome

Application granted; time for serving the notice of appeal extended by three days, validating the notice of appeal and the appeal, with costs of the application ordered personally against the applicant's advocates

Facts

The applicant was dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal judgment in Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2009, delivered on 1 August 2017. It lodged a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal registry on 4 August 2017, within time. The signed and sealed notice of appeal was not available from the registry until 14 August 2017, when it was served on the respondents, three days out of time. The substantive appeal was filed on 7 September 2017 and served on 8 September 2017, which was not in dispute. The application for extension of time to serve the notice of appeal was filed on 7 December 2017, nearly four months after the late service, and after the 2nd respondent had filed an application to strike out the appeal for failure to take an essential step. The applicant's counsel blamed court staff for the delay in signing the notice, but the supporting evidence came only from the law clerk and a letter said to be from the Registrar was not properly annexed to the affidavit in rejoinder.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules to warrant an extension of time within which to serve the notice of appeal.

Orders

  • Extension of three days granted, validating the notice of appeal and the appeal itself.
  • The firm of Nambale, Nerima & Advocates for the applicant to personally pay the costs of this application to counsel for the 2nd respondent before fixture and hearing of the main appeal, fixed at Shs 2,000,000/=.
  • Counsel for the 1st respondent to bear his own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Meaning of 'Sufficient Reason' under Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules
Under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules the court may, for sufficient reason, extend a prescribed time, and what constitutes sufficient reason is a matter of the court's unfettered discretion; it may be either a reason that prevented the applicant from taking the essential step in time, or some other reason why the intended appeal should be allowed to proceed out of time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Inordinate Delay — Discretion to Extend Despite Delay
An application brought promptly is considered more sympathetically than one brought after unexplained inordinate delay, but even where an application is unduly delayed the court may grant an extension where shutting out the appeal would appear to cause injustice.
Civil Procedure — Mistake or Fault of Counsel — Whether Visited on the Client
In exercising its discretion the court may, even where mistake of counsel is not expressly pleaded, lift the veil to identify the party who would suffer most if justice were denied on account of the fault or error of counsel, and decline to condemn a litigant for the deficiencies of his advocate.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Order that Negligent Advocate Personally Bear Costs
Although costs ordinarily follow the event, the court may in its discretion order an applicant's advocates to personally pay the costs of an application where the late service and procedural shortcomings are attributable to the professional carelessness of counsel.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature Act s.8
  • Supreme Court Rules r.5
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42
  • Supreme Court Rules r.43
  • Supreme Court Rules r.50(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Joseph Muluta v Sylvano Katama (Civil Application No. 2 of 1999)
  • Godfrey Magezi & Brian Mbazira v Sudhir Ruparelia (Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2003)
  • Boney M. Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises Ltd v Kampala City Council & Another (Civil Application 9 of 2017) [2018] UGSC 2 (6 February 2018)
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.