Wakilii

Kawooya Ahmed v Hajuuza Wambuzi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 232 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 994 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal out of time, arising from Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2024 (which arose from Jinja Chief Magistrate's Court Civil Suit No. 006 of 2012)
Decision
Application granted; applicant given 15 days to file memorandum of appeal

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 High Court granted the applicant's application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal out of time. The court found that the applicant's serious illness requiring hospitalization and surgery, combined with the inadvertence of his former counsel, constituted sufficient cause for the delay. The court held that the applicant was not guilty of dilatory conduct and that the administration of justice required that the substantive land dispute be determined on its merits by a superior court.

Outcome

Application granted; applicant given 15 days to file memorandum of appeal

Facts

The applicant was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 006 of 2012 at Jinja Chief Magistrate's Court concerning a land dispute. Judgment was delivered on 9 May 2024 dismissing his claim. The applicant instructed his former advocates to file an appeal and the record of proceedings was obtained in June 2024. Shortly thereafter, the applicant fell seriously ill and was hospitalized at Norvic Hospital where he underwent surgery for high blood pressure and kidney problems. He was under close medical supervision for about one month and could not communicate freely. When he contacted his former advocate in August 2024, he learned that the memorandum of appeal had not been filed as the advocate had also been ill. The applicant then instructed new advocates who advised that the time for filing had lapsed, leading to this application for extension of time.

Issues

  1. Whether there is good cause to merit grant of leave to appeal out of time.
  2. Whether the applicant exercised utmost diligence to file his appeal in time but failed.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted unconditional leave for extension of time within which to file the Memorandum of Appeal out of time.
  • The applicant has to file his appeal within 15 days from the delivery of this ruling.
  • The costs of this application shall abide in the outcome of the Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Illness of Applicant
Sickness will amount to justifiable cause for failing to take a certain step in prosecuting legal matters if it is proved that the applicant was ill during the time that step should have been taken and that such sickness was of such a nature as to prevent the applicant from taking the necessary step.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Counsel's Negligence — Effect on Litigant
Omission, mistake or inadvertence of counsel ought not to be visited on the litigant, leading to the striking out of his appeal thereby denying him justice. Unless the appellant was guilty of dilatory conduct in the instructions of his lawyer, errors or omissions on the part of counsel should not be visited on the litigant.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Administration of Justice — Determination on Merits
The administration of justice normally requires that the substance of all disputes should be investigated and decided on the merits and that errors and lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from pursuit of his rights.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Good Cause — Considerations
In determining whether to grant an extension of time to file an appeal, the court must consider whether the applicant has shown sufficient reason related to the inability or failure to take the particular step within the prescribed time, whether the applicant was guilty of dilatory conduct, whether the intended appeal has reasonable chances of success, and whether the respondent will be prejudiced by the grant of the extension.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (23)

  • Magi v Mungiri [1975] EA 179
  • Otim William v Akaanu Siliri (Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2022)
  • Tiberio Okeng and Another v Attorney General and Two Others (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2007)
  • Eriga Jos Perino v Vuzzi Azza Victor and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0009 of 2017)
  • Tight Security Ltd v Chartis Uganda Insurance Company Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2014)
  • Mugo v Wanjiri [1970] EA 481
  • Pinnacle Projects Ltd v Business in Motion Consultants Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)
  • Mande Sekizighru v Mulindwa Badru (Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2021)
  • Mulindula v Kisubika (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Godfrey Magezi and Another v Sudhir Ruparella (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2002)
  • Getti v Shoosmith [1939] 3 All ER 976
  • Brag v Brag [1957] EA 302
  • Haji Mudin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1987)
  • Alex Jokello v Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1987)
  • David Nsubuga and 3 Others v Margaret Kamuge (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1997)
  • Andrew Bamanga v Shamsherali Zaver (Civil Application No. 10 of 2001)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Ngwandusi v Ogako (Civil Application No. 0032 of 2018)
  • Tight Security v Chartis Uganda Insurance Co Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2014)
  • Shamji v Hindocha and Others (1973) EA 20
  • Degega Trading Stores Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdner Bank AG (1972) EA 17
  • Walimbwa v Namwoko (Civil Appeal No. 0158 of 2012) [2014] UGHCLD 45

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kawooya Ahmed v Hajuuza Wambuzi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 232 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 994 (1 September 2025)
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.