Wakilii

Kyalukinda Turinawe and 4 Others v Eng. Turinawe and Another (Civil Application 27 of 2010)

Supreme Court · [2012] UGSC 18 · 2012 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for extension of time to institute an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision.
Decision
Application for extension of time granted; applicants ordered to file their Memorandum of Appeal within 14 days.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 24 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 24 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 23 citing cases on record, 12 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 applicants sought extension of time to appeal a Court of Appeal decision after their former advocates filed a notice of appeal but failed to take further steps to lodge it. The single Justice held that the negligence, mistake, error or omission of an advocate should not be visited on a lay client, and that this constituted sufficient reason under rule 5 of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules. The respondents adduced no credible evidence that the applicants were guilty of dilatory conduct. As the intended appeal concerned a claimed matrimonial home and the ends of justice favoured a hearing on the merits, the application was granted, with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time granted; applicants ordered to file their Memorandum of Appeal within 14 days.

Facts

The first applicant is the wife of the first respondent; the remaining applicants are their children. The second respondent purchased a residential property at Kololo from the first respondent. The applicants sued in the High Court to nullify the sale and transfer, claiming the property was their matrimonial home sold without their consent, and succeeded. On 20 November 2009 the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The applicants instructed their former advocates to appeal; the advocates filed a notice of appeal on 23 November 2009 and requested a certified copy of proceedings. On 11 March 2010 the Registrar notified the advocates that the proceedings were ready, but the advocates took no further steps to lodge the appeal. The applicants only learned in October 2010 that the appeal had not been filed, when their former advocates told them the notice of appeal was to be struck out. The applicants then engaged new advocates and brought this application for extension of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants established sufficient reason for the court to extend the time within which to lodge their appeal.
  2. Whether the applicants were guilty of dilatory conduct.
  3. Whether any injustice would be caused if the application were not granted.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicants to file their Memorandum of Appeal within 14 days from the date of delivery of this Ruling and serve the respondents immediately.
  • No award as to costs; each party to meet their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason — Negligence of Advocate Not Visited on Client
The negligence, mistake, error or omission of an advocate in failing to take the steps necessary to lodge an appeal should not be visited on a lay client and may constitute sufficient reason under rule 5 of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules to extend the time within which to institute the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Dilatory Conduct — Burden of Proof
A respondent who alleges that an applicant for extension of time is guilty of dilatory conduct must adduce credible evidence to establish it; bare assertions or testimony from the bar are insufficient to defeat the application.
Evidence — Affidavits — Preliminary Objection — Compliance with Oaths Act ss.5 and 6
A preliminary objection that an affidavit was sworn in non-compliance with sections 5 and 6 of the Oaths Act must be supported by credible evidence; an objection resting on mere conjecture as to how and where the affidavit was sworn will be overruled.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of the Court — Ends of Justice
The court's inherent power under rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules to make orders necessary for achieving the ends of justice supports extending time so that an intended appeal raising a substantial matter, such as a claimed matrimonial home, may be heard on its merits.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.5
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.41(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.42
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.50
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.53(2)
  • Oaths Act (Cap 19) s.5
  • Oaths Act (Cap 19) s.6

Cases cited (8)

  • Zamu Nalumansi v Sulaiman Lule (Civil Application No. 2 of 1992)
  • Attorney General v A.K.P.M Lutaaya (Civil Application No. 12 of 2007)
  • F. L. Kaderbhoi and Another v Shamsherali M. Zaver Virji and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 20 of 2008)
  • Mulowooza & Bros Ltd v N. Shah & Co Ltd (Civil Application No. 20 of 2010)
  • Godfrey Magezi and Another v Sudhir Ruparelia (Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2003)
  • Wordo ndi Daniel v. Yolamu Egondi (2006) HCB Vol. I, 103
  • Robert Kitariko v David Twinokatoma (Civil Application No. 2 of 1982)
  • Paul Masigo v Toro & Mityana Tea Co. Ltd (Civil Application No. 79 of 1999)

Cases citing this judgment (24)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kyalukinda Turinawe and 4 Others v Eng. Turinawe and Another (Civil Application 27 of 2010) [2012] UGSC 18 (25 January 2012)
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.