Wakilii

Kaketo John Patrick v Namulondo Matelidha (Miscellaneous Application 222 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 996 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file an appeal out of time from a judgment in Land Civil Suit No. 08 of 2022 from the Chief Magistrate Court of Kamuli at Buyende
Decision
Applicant granted extension of time to file appeal within 15 days from delivery of ruling

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 High Court granted the application for extension of time to file an appeal out of time. The court held that the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, which was attributable to the negligence of his former counsel rather than his own dilatory conduct. The court found that the applicant acted promptly upon discovering the mistake, the intended appeal raised arguable grounds, and the respondent would not be prejudiced by the extension.

Outcome

Applicant granted extension of time to file appeal within 15 days from delivery of ruling

Facts

The applicant was a defendant in Land Civil Suit No. 08 of 2022 before the Chief Magistrate Court of Kamuli at Buyende. Judgment was delivered against him on 28 February 2024. He was unrepresented during the trial due to lack of funds. Upon receiving the judgment, he instructed M/S Matovu Kateregga & Co Advocates to file an appeal. The firm filed a Notice of Appeal on 20 March 2024 and obtained certified copies of proceedings on 28 May 2024, but negligently failed to file the Memorandum of Appeal within the prescribed time. The applicant later changed instructions to Bbaale & Partners Advocates, who advised him that his appeal was out of time and filed this application for extension of time on 14 September 2024, approximately six months and thirteen days after the judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant can be granted leave to file an appeal out of time?

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • The applicant be granted unconditional leave for extension of time within which to file the Memorandum of Appeal out of time.
  • The Applicant has to file his appeal within 15 days from the delivery of this Ruling.
  • The costs of this application shall abide in the outcome of the Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Mistake of Counsel
Mistakes, faults, lapses and dilatory conduct of counsel should not be visited on the litigant where the mistake was honest and excusable, not deliberate or negligent, there was no inordinate delay in bringing the application once the mistake was discovered, there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, the intended appeal is not frivolous and raises arguable grounds, and no substantive prejudice would be caused to the respondent.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Good Cause — Factors to Consider
In determining whether to grant an extension of time to file an appeal, the court must consider whether the applicant has shown sufficient reason or good cause for the failure to act in time, whether the delay was caused by the applicant's dilatory conduct, whether the intended appeal has reasonable chances of success or raises arguable grounds, and whether the respondent would be prejudiced by the extension.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Discretion of Court — Interests of Justice
The court has inherent power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and the administration of justice normally requires that the substance of all disputes should be investigated and decided on their merits.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (17)

  • Agro Suppliers Limited v Uganda Development Bank (High Court Civil Suit No. 379 of 2005)
  • Andrew Bamanua v Shamsherali Zaver (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 70 of 2007)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Ngandusi v Ogruko (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 32 of 2018)
  • Tight Security v Chartis Uganda Insurance Co Ltd & Anor (High Court Commercial Division Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2014)
  • Aloysius Kubunga v Samuel Kasava (Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2022)
  • F.L Kaderbhai & Anor v Shamsherali M Javer Virji & 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 20 of 2008)
  • Mugo v Wanfin (1970) EA 481
  • Pinnacle Projects Ltd v Business In Motion Consultants Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)
  • Eriga v Vuzzi & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2017)
  • Shanti v Hindocha & Others (1973) EA 20
  • Andrew Bamanga v Shamsherali Zaver (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Salen Alibhai v Bukenga & Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2016)
  • Wasswa v Kakooza [1992-1993] HCB 55
  • Degega Trading Stores Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 76 of 1996)
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdner Bank AG (1972) EA 77
  • Walimbwa v Namwoko (High Court Civil Appeal No. 158 of 2012) [2014] UGHCLD 45

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaketo John Patrick v Namulondo Matelidha (Miscellaneous Application 222 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 996 (3 August 2025)
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.