Jo' Okello v Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Civil Application 17 of 1996)

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

The court held that an advocate's blunder, committed without fault on the part of the litigant, is sufficient reason under Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules to extend time for filing a Notice of Appeal, and should not be visited on an innocent litigant. Striking out an appeal as incompetent does not dispose of or close the matter, so a fresh application could be entertained. The court exercised its free discretion in favour of the applicant, granting leave and allowing seven days to file the Notice of Appeal, but ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the application to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for extension of time granted; applicant given seven days to file a Notice of Appeal, on payment of the costs of the application to the respondent.

Facts

The applicant instructed an advocate, in time, to lodge an appeal against a decision of the court. The advocate filed the appeal but failed to serve the Notice of Appeal on the respondent. Because no Notice of Appeal had been served, the appeal was incompetent and was struck out. The applicant then applied under Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules for leave to extend time within which to file a Notice of Appeal, contending that the blunder was that of his advocate and not his own. The respondent's counsel argued that there was nothing to extend once the appeal had been struck out, and that the advocate's error was attributable to the client, whose remedy lay in suing the advocate for negligence.

Issues

1. Whether an advocate's blunder, committed without fault on the part of the litigant, constitutes sufficient reason to extend time for filing a Notice of Appeal.
2. Whether an application for extension of time can competently be made after the appeal has been struck out.
3. Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules to extend time.

Orders

• Application granted.
• Applicant given seven days from the date of the ruling within which to file the Notice of Appeal.
• Applicant to pay the costs of this application to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.4

Cases cited (4)

• Matovu v Egwmuka (Supreme Court) (supra)
• Essaji vs Solanki [1958] E.A. 218
• Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd v ... Civil Appeal No. 5/1987 (S.C.)
• Tibaijuka Debora Namukasa v Noel Grace Shalita Stanazi (S.C.) Civil Application No. ... of 1996

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.

• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal 8 of 1998) applied

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