Kanyomozi v Motor Mart (U) Ltd (Civil Application 8 of 1998)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

An error or oversight on the part of counsel is not necessarily a bar to the grant of an extension of time under r.4 of the Supreme Court Rules, and "sufficient reason" is not confined to a matter that prevented the applicant from acting within time. The asserted likelihood of success could not be material where the court had not perused the appeal record. Although the inordinate delay of about 22 months was unexplained, the nature of the judgment satisfied the single Justice that injustice would result if the appeal were not heard on its merits. The application was allowed and time extended, but costs were ordered against the applicant because the proceedings arose from his own default.

Outcome

Application for extension of time allowed; time to apply for restoration of Civil Appeal No. 15/95 extended to 21 days from the date of the ruling, with costs to the Respondent

Facts

In 1993 the applicant sued the respondent and two others in the High Court for breach of contract concerning the repair of his motor vehicle, claiming special damages of shs 75,515,650 together with general damages, interest and costs. The suit was dismissed on 19 January 1995 and the applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 15/95 in the Supreme Court. The appeal was listed for hearing and adjourned twice by consent; on its third listing, on 19 February 1997, both parties and their advocates were absent and an advocate holding brief only to seek an adjournment could not proceed, so the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. An application to restore the appeal (Civil Application No. 26/97) was filed on 5 September 1997 but was withdrawn after objection that it was filed outside the 30-day period prescribed by r.95(5). The present application, filed on 29 October 1998, sought an extension of time, attributing the failure to apply for restoration within time to an oversight by the applicant's counsel.

Issues

1. Whether an oversight or mistake on the part of counsel that caused the failure to apply for restoration of the appeal within time constitutes "sufficient reason" under r.4 of the Supreme Court Rules to justify an extension of time.
2. Whether the inordinate and unexplained delay of about 22 months in bringing the application should bar the grant of an extension of time.
3. Whether the asserted likelihood of success of the intended appeal is a relevant consideration where the court has not perused the record of the appeal.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• Time within which to apply to restore Civil Appeal No. 15/95 extended to 21 days from the date of the ruling.
• Costs of the application to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.4
• Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.1(3)
• Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.95(5)

Cases cited (10)

• Essali v Ssoanli (1968) EA 218
• Haji Nurdin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
• Mugo v Wankiru (1970) EA 481
• Shanti v Hindocha & Others (1973) EA 207
• Executrix of the Estate of Namatovu Vs Noel G. Shalita (unreported)
• N.A.S. Airport Services Ltd v Attorney General of Kenya (1959) EA 53
• Shah Vs Jamnadas & Co. Ltd (1959) EA 54
• Commissioner of Transport v Attorney General of Uganda (1959) EA 325
• Shiv Construction Co. Ltd v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1992)
• Union Vs Allibhai ... Osman (1955) EA

Cases citing this judgment (15)

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.

• Mulirire Daniel v Yeko Ibrahim and Another (Pre- Election Petition No. 18 of 2025)
• Timbigamba Simon and Others v Ker Kwaro Palabek and Others (Civil Misc. Application No. 150 of 2021)
• Bagamba v Nakibuuka & 3 Others (Civil Appeal 8 of 2025)
• Kamulegeya and 2 Others v Sentongo and Another [2023] UGSC 20
• Electoral Commission v George Willy Lubega (Election Petition Application No. 17 of 2022)
• Electoral Commission v Lubega (Election Petition Appeal 17 of 2022)
• Electoral Commission v Lubega (Election Petition Appeal 17 of 2022)
• Electoral Commission v Lubega (Election Petition Application 17 of 2022)
• Hon. Ebil Fred v Ocen Peter (Election Petition Appeal No. 17 & 24 of 2017)
• Tayebwa v Kakuuna and Anor (Petition No. 5 of 2016)
• Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v The Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application 6 of 2013)
• Byarufu v Kabiguruka (Civil Appeal 87 of 2004)
• Manskhlal & Another v Attorney General & 2 Others (Civil Application 1 of 2003)
• Muluta v Katama [1999] UGSC 25
• Joseph Muluta v Sylvano Katama [1999] UGSC 4

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