Wakilii

Kalisa and 3 Others v Baala and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 869 · 2024 Application Dismissed 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 against a ruling of the Assistant Registrar
Decision
Application for extension of time refused

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

Held that the applicants failed to show sufficient cause for extension of time. The illness of one applicant could not justify delay where multiple applicants were involved and other means of communication existed. The two-week period between delivery of the ruling and the alleged illness was not explained. The Assistant Registrar properly exercised discretion in denying costs where the substantive land dispute remained undetermined and required a full trial. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time refused

Facts

The respondents had filed Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2010 seeking orders for the applicants to produce documentary evidence of ownership of land at Kabolwa Village, Buliisa District. The Assistant Registrar did not grant the respondents' prayers and ordered each party to bear own costs, noting that the matter required a full trial to determine customary land rights. The applicants sought to appeal against the denial of costs. The ruling was delivered on 12 September 2019 and certified on 18 September 2019. The present application for extension of time was filed on 20 October 2019, one month after the ruling. The applicants claimed delay was caused by illness of the first applicant who was tasked to deliver the ruling to their lawyer.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants showed sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time against the Assistant Registrar's ruling.
  2. Whether the proposed appeal against the Assistant Registrar's exercise of discretion on costs had any likelihood of success.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause
An application for extension of time to appeal should not be granted as a matter of course but is discretionary and depends on proof of good cause showing that the justice of the matter warrants such extension. The applicant must satisfactorily explain the reasons for delay and show whether there will be denial of justice by refusal of the application.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Illness as Ground for Extension — Multiple Parties
Where multiple applicants are concerned in the same matter, illness of one applicant cannot constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal where any of the other applicants could have delivered the ruling to their advocate or used modern means of communication such as email or WhatsApp to effect delivery.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Undetermined Rights
A court should not condemn a party to costs when the substantive rights of the parties have not been determined. Where a preliminary application is insufficient to determine the rights of parties and a full trial is required, the court may properly exercise its discretion to order each party to bear own costs.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Likelihood of Success
In addition to establishing sufficient cause for delay, an applicant seeking extension of time to appeal must demonstrate that the proposed appeal has a likelihood of success. Where an appeal is against proper exercise of judicial discretion, extension of time may be refused if the appeal appears to have no prospect of success.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • William Odoi Nyadusi v Jackson Oyuko Kasendi (Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 2018)
  • Mugo and Others v Wanjiru and Another [1970] EA 481
  • Ojara Otto Julius v Okwere Benson (Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2017)
  • Candiru v Amandua and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 19 of 2014)
  • Tiberio Okeny and Another v Attorney General and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kalisa and 3 Others v Baala and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 869 (2 August 2024)
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.