Wakilii

Kisomose v Kkantana Investment Limited (Miscellaneous Application 822 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 34 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time and stay of execution arising from Chief Magistrate Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 050 of 2021
Decision
Leave to appeal granted; stay of execution refused; eviction proceedings may proceed

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

Held that the applicant was granted leave to file an appeal out of time where the delay was caused by negligence of counsel, which should not be visited upon the client. The court applied the principle from Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver that mistakes of counsel should not be vested on the litigant. However, the application for stay of execution was dismissed as premature because no memorandum of appeal had been filed before court, and the existence of an appeal is a prerequisite for granting stay of execution under Order 43 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted; stay of execution refused; eviction proceedings may proceed

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 050 of 2021 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kajjansi. Summons were served on the applicant through his wife on 15 June 2022. The applicant failed to file a defence, and the respondent obtained interlocutory judgment on 7 July 2022. The applicant filed Misc. Application No. 020 of 2022 to set aside the default judgment, which was dismissed with costs. Judgment was delivered on 24 August 2023. The applicant did not file an appeal within the prescribed time. On 4 April 2024, the applicant filed this application seeking leave to appeal out of time and stay of execution. An eviction was scheduled for 28 April 2024. The applicant claimed his former counsel never informed him of the steps to take after judgment was delivered.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Her Worship Birungi Phionah.
  2. Whether the orders vide Civil Suit No. 050 of 2021 can be stayed pending the hearing of the intended appeal.

Orders

  • The applicant is hereby granted leave to file an appeal against the decision of Her Worship Birungi Phionah vide Civil Suit No. 50 of 2021 out of time.
  • The eviction vide Execution Misc. Application No. 046 of 2023 arising from Civil Suit No. 050 of 2021 is hereby not stayed by this court.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Time Limits — Effect of Late Filing Without Leave
An affidavit in reply to an interlocutory application must be filed within 15 days of service of the application, and failure to do so without seeking leave or extension of time renders the affidavit incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Leave to Appeal Out of Time — Negligence of Counsel
Where delay in filing an appeal is caused by negligence of counsel who failed to advise the client on the steps to take after judgment, the court may grant leave to appeal out of time as the mistake of counsel should not be visited upon the litigant.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Precondition of Pending Appeal
An application for stay of execution pending appeal is premature where no memorandum of appeal has been filed before court, as the existence of an appeal before court is a prerequisite for granting stay of execution under Order 43 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 333 of 2010)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 70 of 2011)
  • Across African Clearing and Forwarding Co. Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority & Anor (MA No. 0003 of 2012)
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (CACA No. 16 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kisomose_v_Kkantana_Investment_Limited_(Miscellaneous_Application_822_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_34_(21_February_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.