Wakilii

Kaderbhai v Shamsherali (Civil Application 20 of 2008)

Supreme Court · [2008] UGSC 25 · 2008 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for extension of time to institute an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision
Decision
Extension of time granted; applicants ordered to file the record and memorandum of appeal within one week

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 3 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 27 citing cases on record, 9 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 for extension of time to institute an appeal, the Supreme Court held that the inadvertent failure of the applicants' former counsel to serve the notice of appeal and the letter requesting the record constituted sufficient reason for the delay. The court reaffirmed that 'sufficient reason' lies within its unfettered discretion and that an error of counsel should not necessarily be visited on the client. Distinguishing Boney Katatumba, where the applicant had not been vigilant, the court found the applicants had consistently shown interest in pursuing their appeal on the merits. The application was granted with costs to the respondent as conceded.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; applicants ordered to file the record and memorandum of appeal within one week

Facts

Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2004 (delivered 12 November 2007), the applicants instructed counsel to appeal. Counsel lodged a notice of appeal on 15 November 2007 and wrote on 30 November 2007 requesting a certified copy of the proceedings, but inadvertently failed to serve the notice of appeal and to copy and serve the record-request letter on the opposite parties as required by the rules. Because the record-request letter was not served, the period taken to prepare the record could not be deducted, and the time for filing the appeal elapsed on 15 January 2008. When the Registrar of the Court of Appeal notified counsel of the record's availability on 29 April 2008, the time had already passed. The applicants, resident in the United Kingdom, had changed their email address, causing communication difficulties with counsel until early July 2008. The application for extension was filed on 16 September 2008, after current counsel reviewed a pending application to strike out the notice of appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants showed sufficient reason under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules to justify an extension of time for instituting their appeal.
  2. Whether the inadvertence of the applicants' former counsel constituted sufficient reason for the delay.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time allowed.
  • Applicants to file the record and memorandum of appeal within one week from the date of the ruling.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent as conceded by the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Meaning of 'Sufficient Reason' under Rule 5
Under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, what constitutes 'sufficient reason' for extending prescribed time lies within the court's unfettered discretion, and the court may accept either a reason that prevented the applicant from taking the essential step in time or other reasons why the intended appeal should be allowed to proceed out of time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Inadvertence and Error of Counsel
The inadvertent failure of counsel to comply with procedural requirements may constitute sufficient reason to extend time for instituting an appeal, because an error of counsel should not necessarily be visited on the client.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Relevance of Delay and the Applicant's Diligence
Even where an application for extension of time is delayed, the court may grant it if shutting out the appeal would cause injustice; an applicant who has consistently shown an interest in having the appeal heard on the merits will be treated more sympathetically than one shown to have been dilatory.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.2(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.5
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42
  • Supreme Court Rules r.50
  • Supreme Court Rules r.74(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.79(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.79(3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Boney M. Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
  • Delia Almeida v Dr Carmo Rui Almeida (Civil Application No. 15 of 1990)
  • Zam Nalumansi v Suleman Lule (Civil Application No. 02 of 1999)

Cases citing this judgment (27)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaderbhai v Shamsherali (Civil Application 20 of 2008) [2008] UGSC 25 (17 October 2008)
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.