Wakilii

Kiramira v Tumwebaze,Atugonza,Kobusingye Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 1401 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 240 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal against a taxation ruling and a prior court ruling
Decision
Application granted; time extended for applicant to file appeal within 7 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 held that lack of financial ability to immediately instruct a lawyer to appeal constitutes sufficient reason for failure to appeal in time. The applicant's reason for delay—lack of funds to instruct lawyers—was accepted as sufficient cause. The court granted the application, extending the time within which the applicant had to appeal and ordering the applicant to file the appeal within 7 days.

Outcome

Application granted; time extended for applicant to file appeal within 7 days

Facts

The applicant was dissatisfied with a ruling dated 6 June 2019 and a taxation ruling dated 25 May 2022. The applicant sought leave to appeal both rulings to the Court of Appeal. An earlier application for leave to appeal (Miscellaneous Application No. 7933 of 2021) was held to be premature pending re-assessment of the advocate-client bill of costs. The matter was allocated to the Deputy Registrar for re-assessment. On 25 May 2022, the Deputy Registrar awarded the respondents UGX 45,980,000 as costs in an ex-parte hearing. The applicant contended he was not given a chance to oppose the bill of costs. The applicant stated that delay in filing the instant application was due to lack of funds to instruct lawyers.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal.
  2. Whether lack of funds to instruct lawyers constitutes sufficient reason for delay in filing an appeal.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Time within which the applicant had to appeal is enlarged.
  • Applicant to file his appeal within 7 days of this ruling.
  • Applicant to serve the appeal onto the respondents.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Lack of Funds to Instruct Lawyers
Lack of financial ability to immediately instruct a lawyer to appeal constitutes sufficient reason for failure to appeal in time and warrants extension of time to file an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Discretion of Court — Judicial Exercise
The court has discretion to grant extension of time to appeal out of time so that the appeal is heard on its merits, but the discretion must be exercised judicially on proper analysis of the facts and proper application of the law to the facts.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Test
An application for extension of time within which to file an appeal must show sufficient cause before the court can exercise its discretion in the applicant's favour. The sufficient cause must relate to the inability or failure to take necessary steps within the prescribed time and does not relate to taking a wrong decision.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Margret Musango v Francis Musango [1979] HCB 226
  • Hodoadl Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Twshqbe Chris v Cooperative Bank Ltd (in receivership) (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiramira_v_Tumwebaze,Atugonza,Kobusingye_Advocates_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1401_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_240_(25_October_2022)
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.