Wakilii

Kihuku and others v Sabiti and Another (Civil Application 24 of 1995)

Supreme Court · [1996] UGSC 20 · 1996 Application Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for leave to extend the time within which to lodge an appeal out of time, brought under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Decision
Application for extension of time allowed; applicants granted seven days to lodge their 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

On an application under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court for extension of time to lodge an appeal, the Court held that sufficient reason had been shown. The applicants were absent when judgment dismissing their suit was delivered on notice, and their counsel had no instructions to appeal. The first applicant, a peasant, acted diligently in obtaining a copy of the judgment and consulting his co-plaintiffs before instructing counsel. The short delay was not caused or contributed to by any dilatory conduct on his part. The Court declined to resolve the respondent's challenge to the 2nd and 3rd applicants' competence, there being no evidence the issue was raised at trial. The application was allowed and time extended by seven days.

Outcome

Application for extension of time allowed; applicants granted seven days to lodge their appeal.

Facts

The applicants were plaintiffs in ECCS No. 857 of 1989 in the High Court, where they sought cancellation of the respondents' certificate of title to the suit land, issue of a title to themselves, an eviction order and a permanent injunction. After final addresses, the judge indicated he would proceed on leave and that judgment would be delivered by the Registrar on notice. On 11 April 1995 the suit was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata and limitation. The applicants were absent, and their counsel, who arrived as the Deputy Registrar finished delivering judgment, was told its gist but had no instructions to appeal. The first applicant received information of the decision on 20 April 1995, travelled to Kampala, and obtained a copy of the judgment on 26 April 1995, by which time the 14-day appeal period had expired. He returned home to consult his co-plaintiffs, then instructed counsel on 8 May 1995, and the application was filed on 11 May 1995.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants showed sufficient reason under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court to justify extending the time within which to lodge an appeal.
  2. Whether the application on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd applicants was competent where the supporting affidavit was sworn by the 1st applicant alone.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Time extended seven days from the date hereof to enable the applicants to lodge their appeal in proper form.
  • Costs of the application to be paid by the applicants in any event.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time to Appeal — Sufficient Reason under Rule 4
An application to extend the time within which to appeal succeeds only where the applicant shows sufficient reason, the most persuasive being that the delay was not caused or contributed to by his own dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time to Appeal — Diligence of the Litigant
Where a party who was absent at the delivery of judgment acts promptly to obtain a copy of the judgment and to consult his co-parties before instructing counsel, the resulting short delay is not dilatory conduct barring an extension of time.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Source of Information
An affidavit deposed to from information must disclose the source of that information; but where a deponent swears to the gist of a judgment given against him, he deposes from his own knowledge and not from information requiring disclosure of a source.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Sworn on Behalf of Co-parties — Onus of Proof
Where a deponent states that he is authorised to swear an affidavit on behalf of co-applicants, the onus lies on the party challenging that authority to prove that no such authorisation was given.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 4

Cases cited (6)

  • Kaingana v Dabo Boubou (1986) HCB 59
  • Shanti v Hindocha & Others [1973] EA 207
  • Bhatt v Manhant Singh (1965) EA 797
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Bins Obedde (Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
  • Mugo v Wanjiru & Another (1970) EA 481
  • Kassamali Gulamhusein & Co (Kenya) Ltd v Kyrtatas Bros Ltd (1968) EA 542

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kihuku and others v Sabiti and Another (Civil Application 24 of 1995) [1996] UGSC 20 (25 March 1996)
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.