Wakilii

Kusemererwa v Okwiri (HCT-01-LD-MA-0036-2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 709 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file notice of appeal out of time following dismissal of first appeal
Decision
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction

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 lacks jurisdiction to grant an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Rule 5 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal to extend time for acts required by its own rules, including filing a notice of appeal. The High Court's inherent powers under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules do not override the specific jurisdiction granted to the appellate court. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Facts

The applicant sought leave to file a notice of appeal out of time following the dismissal of his first appeal (HCT-01-LD-CA-24/2022) on 14 November 2024. The first appeal arose from a land trespass suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court (FPT-00-CV-LD-CS-112/2016) in which the respondent successfully sued the applicant. The applicant claimed he was unaware of the judgment date and only learned of it on 11 March 2025. He filed this application under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 52 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking an extension of time to file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The respondent opposed, arguing the application was misconceived and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction, as the power to extend time for filing appeals to the Court of Appeal lies with the Court of Appeal itself under Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant has sufficient reason for failing to file a notice of appeal within the prescribed time.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Jurisdiction to Extend Time — Extension of Time for Filing Notice of Appeal to Court of Appeal
The jurisdiction to grant an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal lies exclusively with the Court of Appeal under Rule 5 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, not with the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Limits of Section 98 Civil Procedure Act
The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules should not be used to override the specific and exclusive jurisdiction granted to the Court of Appeal for matters pertaining to appeals lodged before it.
Civil Procedure — Statutory Interpretation — Specific Provision Prevails Over General
Where a specific statute or set of rules provides a particular remedy or procedure, recourse should be had to that specific provision rather than to general provisions, including the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Appellate Court as Custodian of Own Processes
The Court of Appeal, as the appellate court, is inherently the custodian of its own processes and rules, and has sole authority to regulate the progression of appeals to itself, including the extension of time for filing a notice of appeal.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (7)

  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdener Bank & Anor [1971] EA
  • Veronica Tindyebwa v Jane Mugarura & Anor (HCT-05-CV-MA-0558-2023)
  • Royal Mabati Ltd v Mandela Suleiman (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 122 of 2023)
  • Twiga Chemicals v Viola Bamusedele Ewambale (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2002)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 1 of 2025)
  • The Matter of Ranch on the Lake Limited (In Receivership) (HCT-00-CC-MA-0537-2005)
  • Good African Foundation Ltd & Anor v Agricultural Business Initiative Trust (Miscellaneous Application No. 1592 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kusemererwa v Okwiri (HCT-01-LD-MA-0036-2025) [2025] UGHC 709 (19 August 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.