Wakilii

Kasamba Bus Service-Transporters Ltd v Dr Atiku Isaac Opika and Another (Miscellaneous Application 71 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 841 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time arising from Civil Suit No. 21 of 2015
Decision
Application granted with direction to file memorandum of appeal within 14 days

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 court granted leave to appeal out of time where the applicant demonstrated non-service of the judgment notice. The court found no evidence the applicant was served with the judgment notice, establishing sufficient reason for the delay. The application succeeded under Civil Procedure Act section 79(1)(a), which permits appeals after the limitation period for good cause shown. Costs were ordered to abide by the outcome of the appeal.

Outcome

Application granted with direction to file memorandum of appeal within 14 days

Facts

The applicant sought leave to appeal out of time from a judgment in Civil Suit No. 21 of 2015 delivered on 22 April 2024 requiring payment of UGX 87,000,000 for injuries sustained by the respondents while travelling in a bus allegedly operated by the applicant. The applicant's Managing Director deposed that the applicant was never served with judgment notices and only learned of the judgment on 5 September 2024 when given a copy at Kisenyi Bus Terminal by an unidentified Link Bus Services driver. The respondents contended the judgment notice was issued on 17 April 2024 and served on both parties, posted on court notice boards, and the applicant waived their rights by sitting on them for over 5 months. The judgment notice attached to the respondents' affidavit bore only the receiving stamp of the respondents' counsel with no affidavit of service evidencing service on the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for leave to appeal out of time should be granted.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant directed to file and serve the respondents with the memorandum of appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • Costs of the application to abide by the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal Out of Time — Requirements for Good Cause
Under Civil Procedure Act section 79(1)(a), an appellate court may admit an appeal after the thirty-day limitation period has elapsed where the applicant shows good cause, which must relate to the inability or failure to take the particular step in time and must not be attributable to dilatory conduct or lack of bona fides on the applicant's part.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Proof of Service — Burden on Party Alleging Service
Where a party contends that a judgment notice was served but the notice bears only the receiving stamp of the opposing party's counsel and there is no affidavit of service, there is no evidence of service on the applicant, and non-service constitutes sufficient reason for failure to file an appeal within the prescribed time.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal — Not a Prerequisite to Application for Extension of Time
A notice of appeal does not institute an appeal but is merely an expression of intention to institute an appeal, and failure to attach a draft memorandum or notice of appeal to an application for leave to appeal out of time does not render the application premature or speculative.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Pinnacle Projects Limited v Business in Motion (HCMA No. 362 of 2010)
  • Mugo and Others v Wanjiru and Another (1970) EA 481
  • Tiberio Okeny and Another v Attorney General and 2 Others (CACA No. 51 of 2001)
  • Ojara Otto Julius v Okwera Benson (HCMA No. 23 of 2017)
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Engodi (CACA No. 67 of 2003)
  • Equity Bank Uganda Ltd v Nicholas Were (HCMA No. 604 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasamba Bus Service-Transporters Ltd v Dr Atiku Isaac Opika and Another (Miscellaneous Application 71 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 841 (27 July 2026)
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.