Kabatabazi v Muwanga (Civil Appeal 2 of 1988)

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 applicant sought an extension of time to obtain leave to appeal against a High Court order refusing leave to appeal. The Deputy Chief Justice held that the burden lay on the applicant to satisfy the court of sufficient cause for not appealing in time, and that this had not been discharged. Once the trial judge refused leave to appeal, the only proper course was to appeal directly to the Supreme Court; instead counsel wrongly applied to another High Court judge, who had no jurisdiction since all High Court judges have equal jurisdiction. The delay justified by reference to that misconceived application was of no consequence. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant had sued the respondent in the High Court. During the hearing, counsel for the applicant made an oral application for leave to put a tenancy agreement in evidence, which the trial judge (Kato J.) rejected because the document had not been listed and the application was made orally rather than by chamber summons. A subsequent formal chamber summons was also dismissed, the judge holding himself functus officio and without jurisdiction. Counsel orally sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which the High Court refused. Instead of appealing directly to the Supreme Court, counsel filed a notice of motion before another High Court judge (Kalanda J.), who dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. The applicant then brought this application to the Supreme Court for extension of time, the statutory 14-day period having expired, attributing the delay to counsel being out of station.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause to justify an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Orders

• Application for extension of time dismissed.
• Costs of the application to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.19
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.40
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.41
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
• Civil Procedure Rules O.18 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.40 r.1(4)

Cases citing this judgment (6)

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.

• God is Able Graphic Designers & Suppliers Limited v Damanico Properties Limited (Civil Suit 306 of 2021)
• Megha Industries Uganda Limited v Brood Uganda Limited (Civil Suit 1026 of 2020)
• Parul Kamalesh v Jinja District Land Board and Another (HCT-03-MC-CS 17 of 2023)
• Gunter Piber & Anor v E. Krall Investments (U) Ltd & 4 Ors (Misc. Applic. No 103 of 2008)
• Erukana v Vasrambhai (Civil Appeal 2 of 2002)
• Kuwe v Vader (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2002)

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