Wakilii

Kakembo v Bikako and Another (Election Petition Application 32 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2016] UGCA 91 · 2016 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by a single Justice for extension of time to file a Memorandum and Record of Appeal in an election petition appeal
Decision
Application for extension of time granted; applicant permitted to file the Memorandum of Appeal 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

On a single-Justice application for extension of time to file a Memorandum and Record of Appeal in an election petition appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the applicant had shown sufficient reason. Delay caused entirely by the trial court's failure to avail certified copies of the judgment and typed proceedings until 5 August 2016, after the filing deadline, amounted to sufficient reason. Counsel's inaction due to a heavy workload of election petitions, though unethical, should not be visited on the diligent client. Although election petitions are time-bound, delays caused by courts and advocates must not prejudice unknowledgeable clients. The application was granted, with each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

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

Facts

The applicant and the first respondent contested the seat of Member of Parliament for Entebbe Municipality at the general parliamentary elections of 18 February 2016. The first respondent was declared validly elected. The applicant petitioned the High Court, which dismissed the petition with costs on 8 July 2016 and upheld the election, the judgment being read from the trial judge's laptop. 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 to enable filing of the Memorandum and Record of Appeal. He sent a reminder on 28 July 2016. The certified judgment and proceedings were availed to him only on 5 August 2016, after the time for filing the Memorandum of Appeal had lapsed. The applicant swore an affidavit supporting an extension application on 17 August 2016, but his counsel, owing to a heavy workload of election petitions, did not file it until 24 August 2016. The applicant accordingly sought extension of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established sufficient reason to warrant extension of time within which to file a Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal in an election petition appeal.
  2. Whether delay attributable to the trial court in availing the certified judgment and proceedings, and the busy schedule of counsel, constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason — Delay Attributable to the Court
Where the delay in taking a procedural step is attributable entirely to the court, such as 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.
Extension of Time — Mistake or Inaction of Counsel — Effect on Client
The omission, mistake or inadvertence of counsel, including failure to file an application timeously due to a heavy workload, constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time, and a diligent client who depends on counsel should not be made to suffer for counsel's fault.
Election Petition Appeals — Time Limits — Application of Extension Principles to Specialised Proceedings
Although election petitions are specialised proceedings subject to strict statutory time limits, the court's discretion to extend time may still be exercised where delays are caused by the courts or by advocates who are officers of the court, so that unknowledgeable clients dependent on them are not prejudiced.
Extension of Time — Diligence Requirement — Burden on Applicant
An applicant seeking extension of time must act diligently and without undue delay, and bears the responsibility of proving to the satisfaction of the court that for sufficient reason it was not possible to take the particular step within the prescribed time; the court must exercise its discretion judicially after analysing the facts and the law.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.33
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.2(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 (8)

  • 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 Tejwart Singh (1962) EA 497
  • Bhatt v Tejwart Singh (1962) EA 497

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kakembo v Bikako and Another (Election Petition Application 32 of 2016) [2016] UGCA 91 (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.