Kagoro Epimarc v Jotena and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1902 of 2022)
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
Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Sufficient cause must relate to inability or failure to take necessary steps within the prescribed time, not to taking a wrong decision or dilatory conduct.
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed
Facts
The applicant sought leave to appeal out of time against the registrar's decision in taxation applications no. 42 of 2021 and 48 of 2021, which awarded costs of UGX 89,962,014 to the 1st respondent and UGX 121,163,388 to the 2nd respondent. The applicant argued that the existence of two conflicting orders in the same matter by different judicial officers between the same parties, and the allegedly excessive costs awarded by the taxing master, constituted sufficient cause for extension of time. The 1st respondent did not file a reply. The 2nd respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicant's decision to file a different application instead of appealing the taxation decision amounted to taking a wrong decision and demonstrated dilatory conduct of 19 months.
Issues
- Whether the applicant disclosed sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to appeal out of time against the registrar's decision in taxation applications.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- No order as to costs since the 1st respondent did not file a reply.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Civil Procedure Act s.96
- Civil Procedure Rules O.51 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
Cases cited (3)
- Sanso Kananura Andrew Kansiime v Richard Henry Kajjukangoma (Reference No. 15 of 2016)
- Tight Security Ltd v Chartis Uganda Insurance Co Ltd (HCMA No. 8 of 2014)
- Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.