Wakilii

Kakembo Micheal v Bikako and Another (Election Petition Application No.32 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2016] UGCA 109 · 2016 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice for extension of time to file Memorandum and Record of Appeal in an election petition appeal
Decision
Application for extension of time granted; applicant permitted to file Memorandum and Record of Appeal out of time

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 single Justice held that the applicant had shown sufficient reason for an extension of time to file his Memorandum and Record of Appeal in an election petition appeal. The court found the delay was attributable to the lower court's failure to avail certified copies of the judgment and typed proceedings in time (the judgment having been read from a laptop), and partly to the applicant's counsel's heavy involvement in numerous election petitions. The court held that errors of court officials and counsel's omission constitute sufficient reason, and an unknowledgeable client should not suffer for faults he did not contribute to. The application was granted and each party ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time granted; applicant permitted to file Memorandum and Record of Appeal out of time

Facts

The applicant and the first respondent contested the parliamentary seat for Entebbe Municipality in the general elections of 18 February 2016. The first respondent was declared validly elected. The applicant petitioned the High Court, which on 8 July 2016 dismissed the petition with costs and upheld the election. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 15 July 2016 and on the same day requested certified copies of the judgment and typed proceedings. The trial judge had read the judgment from his laptop, so no signed hard copy was immediately available. The certified copies and proceedings were availed to the applicant on 5 August 2016, after the seven-day period for filing the Memorandum of Appeal had lapsed. The applicant signed an affidavit in support of the extension application on 17 August 2016, but his counsel, Katumba Chrisestom, did not file it until 24 August 2016 due to involvement in numerous election petitions. The applicant applied for extension of time to file the Memorandum and Record of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient reason to warrant an extension of time within which to file the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal.
  2. Whether delay attributable to the court in availing certified copies of the judgment and proceedings, and to counsel's busy schedule, amounts to sufficient reason.

Orders

  • The application for extension of time within which to file the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal is granted.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason — Delay Attributable to Court
Where delay in filing an appeal is caused by the court's failure to avail certified copies of the judgment and typed proceedings within time, this constitutes sufficient reason justifying an extension of time, and refusal to grant the extension would occasion injustice to the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Mistake or Inadvertence of Counsel
The omission, mistake or inadvertence of counsel, including failure to file an application in time due to a heavy workload, constitutes sufficient reason to justify an extension of time, and the consequences of counsel's inaction should not be visited upon an unknowledgeable client who relied on counsel.
Electoral Law — Election Petition Appeals — Time Limits and Extension
Although election petitions are specialized proceedings governed by strict statutory time limits, the court retains discretion to extend time where sufficient reason is shown, particularly where delays are caused by the courts or by advocates who are officers of court.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.33
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.2
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.4
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.5
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.44
  • Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules r.30
  • Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules r.31
  • Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) (Production of Records of Appeals) Direction SI 141-4 r.2

Cases cited (7)

  • Wakayima Musoke Nsereko v Kasule Robert Ssebunya (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2016)
  • Kampala Capital City Authority v Kabandize and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 21 of 2014)
  • Kasibante Moses v Electoral Commission (Court of Appeal Election Petition Application No. 7 of 2012)
  • Shanti v Hindocha and Others [1973] EA 207
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Severio Oryeda (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 3 of 1986)
  • Mugo and Others v Wanjiru and Another [1970] EA 481
  • Bhatt v Tejwant Singh [1962] EA 497

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kakembo Micheal v Bikako and Another (Election Petition Application No.32 of 2016) [2016] UGCA 109 (19 December 2016)
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.