Wakilii

Kansiime v Himalaya Traders Limited (Civil Application 60 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 19 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for leave/extension of time to file a cross appeal out of time
Decision
Application allowed; applicant granted leave to file his cross appeal out of time within 30 days

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 7 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 an application under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules for leave to cross appeal out of time, the Court held that filing a single application arising from three appeals raising similar questions was a sensible course and not incompetent, and overruled the respondents' objection. The Court found sufficient cause: the applicant had repeatedly instructed his lawyers to file the cross appeal and the delay was due to their inadvertence, which should not be visited on the litigant. A delay of roughly three months and two weeks was not inordinate. The application was allowed and the applicant granted leave to file his cross appeal within 30 days, with costs to the respondents.

Outcome

Application allowed; applicant granted leave to file his cross appeal out of time within 30 days

Facts

On 1 April 2021 the Court of Appeal, in Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2018, found that the respondents' certificates of title had been obtained illegally and fraudulently, but did not order cancellation of the titles nor award the applicant damages. The applicant wished to challenge that failure but was advised by his lawyers to await the respondents' appeals before cross appealing. The respondents lodged their appeals (SCCA No. 15, 17 and 19 of 2021) and served the applicant in early August 2021, requiring a cross appeal within 30 days, which elapsed on 1 and 2 September 2021. The applicant instructed his lawyers to file the cross appeal on 31 August 2021 and repeatedly followed up, but the lawyers, whose receptionist failed to pass on the letter of instruction promptly, did not act in time. The applicant filed the present application for extension of time on 14 December 2021.

Issues

  1. Whether a single application for leave to cross appeal arising from three separate appeals was incompetent for treating the appeals as consolidated.
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause, on the basis of mistake or inadvertence of counsel, to be granted an extension of time to file a cross appeal.
  3. Whether the applicant was guilty of inordinate delay or dilatory conduct.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to cross appeal in Supreme Court Civil Appeals No. 15, 17 and 19 of 2021, out of time.
  • The cross appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondents, save the 1st respondent who is entitled to only 1/3 of the taxed costs.
  • The costs awarded shall be determined at the conclusion of the respective main appeals.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Mistake or Inadvertence of Counsel
The inadvertence, negligence or carelessness of counsel constitutes sufficient cause for an extension of time and should not be visited upon a litigant who instructed his lawyers in time, provided the litigant is not himself guilty of dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Meaning of Sufficient Cause
Sufficient cause is a matter for the court's unfettered discretion, to be exercised judiciously; it embraces either a reason that prevented the applicant from taking the essential step in time or other reasons why the intended appeal should proceed though out of time, the facts and circumstances of each case being decisive.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Inordinate Delay
A delay of roughly three months and two weeks in filing an application for extension of time, where the applicant continued to pursue his lawyers to file the cross appeal, does not amount to inordinate delay or dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Applications — Consolidation — Single Application Arising from Multiple Appeals
Where multiple appeals raise similar questions and seek substantially common reliefs, filing a single application for leave to cross appeal rather than separate applications is a sensible course that avoids unnecessary duplication and does not render the application incompetent.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.5
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.43
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.87
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.97
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • F.L. Kaderbhai & Another v Shamsherali M. Zaver Virji (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2008)
  • Capt. Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Godfrey Magezi v Sudhir Ruparelia (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • Kananura Kansiime Andrew v Richard Henry Kaijuka (Reference No. 15 of 2006)
  • Parimal v Veena alias Bharti [2011] 3 SCC 345

Cases citing this judgment (7)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kansiime v Himalaya Traders Limited (Civil Application 60 of 2021) [2022] UGSC 19 (14 February 2022)
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.