Wakilii

Julius Emomeri v Shell (U) Limited (Civil Application No. 19 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1997] UGCA 3 · 1997 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file and serve notice of appeal, memorandum and record of appeal from a High Court judgment
Decision
Application for extension of time allowed; applicant granted extension to file notice of appeal and, thereafter, memorandum and record of appeal within 30 days

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

The Court of Appeal considered an application under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996 for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal and related documents. The court held that sufficient reason had been shown: the applicant had been delayed in serving the respondent because the respondent refused personal service and his advocates' chambers had been closed, and further delay was caused by his advocates' negligence. Since the applicant himself was vigilant and not guilty of dilatory conduct, the negligence of his advocates was not a bar to relief. The application was allowed, granting extension of time to file the notice, memorandum and record of appeal.

Outcome

Application for extension of time allowed; applicant granted extension to file notice of appeal and, thereafter, memorandum and record of appeal within 30 days

Facts

The applicant was the losing party in High Court Civil Suit No. 440 of 1994 against the respondent, in which he claimed damages for breach of a contract of employment. Judgment was delivered on 17 March 1995. Dissatisfied, he instructed advocates to appeal. A notice of appeal was filed on 29 March 1995 but was not served on the respondent's advocate until 20 June 1995, outside the time prescribed by the rules. Service was delayed because the respondent refused personal service and because the respondent's counsel's chambers had been closed by the Law Council Disciplinary Committee and did not reopen until June 1996. Further delay in filing the application arose from repeated changes of the applicant's advocates, their negligence, difficulty obtaining the record of proceedings, and investigations into the standing of the respondent's advocate. The applicant later instructed Emesu & Co. Advocates, who brought this application for extension of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996 to justify extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal, memorandum and record of appeal.
  2. Whether negligence or mistake by the applicant's advocates constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time.

Orders

  • The application is allowed.
  • The applicant is granted an extension of time within which to file notice of appeal.
  • The applicant is thereafter to file the memorandum and record of appeal within 30 days.
  • Costs will be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
On an application for extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the court has unfettered discretion to grant an extension for sufficient reason, and the burden lies on the applicant to satisfy the court that it was not possible to lodge the appeal in time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason Depends on Circumstances of Each Case
What constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time depends on the circumstances of each case and must relate to the inability or failure to take a particular step in time, though other considerations may also be invoked.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Negligence of Counsel
A mistake or negligence by counsel is not necessarily a bar to an intending appellant obtaining an extension of time; a lay person who has entrusted his case to advocates in their professional capacity should not have his pursuit of justice frustrated by the negligence of those advocates.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 4

Cases cited (12)

  • Mukula International Ltd vs. Cardinal Nsubuga 1982 HCB 11
  • Mayega VS. Katende and Another {1979} HCB 51
  • Essaji & Others vs. Solanki {1968} EA 218
  • Commisssioner for Transport vs. Attorney General {1959} EA 329
  • Sepiriya Kyamulesire v Justine Bikanchulika Bagambe (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
  • National Pharmacy, vs. KCC {1979} HCB 1
  • Immaculate Mubiru vs. J. Ndaula {1979} HCB 130
  • Busasi & Anor VB. Kareeba and Anor {1979} HCB 129
  • Gatti vs. Shoosmith (1939) 3 All ER 962
  • Ngoni Matengo Cooperative Union Ltd. VB. A. (Osman) 1959 EA 972
  • Ben Kiwanuka v Haji Nurdin Matovu (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1990)
  • Shanti vs. Hidocha & others (1973) EA 207

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Julius Emomeri v Shell (U) Limited (Civil Application No. 19 of 1997) [1997] UGCA 3 (16 October 1997)
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.