Katurature and Another v Karegyera and 3 Others (Civil Application No. 128 of 2002)

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.

Holding

The Court considered an application to extend time to lodge a notice of appeal under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. It held that the discretion to extend time is exercised in favour of an applicant who shows sufficient cause relating to the failure to take the step in time, and who is not responsible for the delay. The applicants, who were illiterate, claimed their former lawyer failed to advise them on the 14-day period. The Court held that merely informing a lawyer of a desire to appeal does not impose an obligation to advise on time limits, as this was not an instruction to act. The applicants had not shown they were blameless. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicants had been in a long legal dispute with the respondents over trespass to land comprised in Leasehold LWM/5918, of which they claimed to be joint proprietors. The applicants lost successively before the Magistrate Grade II, the Chief Magistrate, and on appeal to the High Court at Mbarara, which dismissed their appeal on 7 October 2002. The applicants, who were illiterate, believed they had 30 days within which to file a further appeal. They had informed their lawyer, Mr. Katembeko, who had represented them in the High Court appeal, of their desire to appeal, but he did not advise them that a notice of appeal had to be filed within 14 days. On learning from new advocates that the time had expired, the applicants brought this application some one month and two days after the judgment, seeking an extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants demonstrated sufficient cause to justify an extension of time within which to lodge a notice of appeal.
2. Whether failure of the applicants' former lawyer to advise them on the time for commencing the appeal constituted sufficient cause.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Court of Appeal Rules r.4
• Court of Appeal Rules r.42

Cases cited (3)

• tugo vs UYanjiri (1970) EA 481
• Shanti ys Hundocha and Others (1973)EA 201
• Alhaji Ziraba Balyejusa v Development Finance Co. Ltd (Civil Application No. 31 of 2000)

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