Wakilii

Leya Burakali v Ssekirime Godfrey (Miscellaneous Application 22 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 653 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to appeal an exparte judgment from the Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Applicant granted extension of time to file notice of appeal against exparte judgment

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 granted the application for extension of time to appeal an exparte judgment. The applicant had been prevented from appealing within the prescribed time because the matter was heard exparte and she was not notified of her right to appeal, and she was subsequently committed to civil prison for over six months as a judgment debtor. The court held that it would not be just to lock the applicant out and that matters should be handled on their merits interparties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Outcome

Applicant granted extension of time to file notice of appeal against exparte judgment

Facts

The respondent successfully sued the applicant in Land Civil Suit No. 37 of 2020 at the Chief Magistrate's Court of Sembabule for declaration of ownership of a kibanja, vacant possession, permanent injunction, eviction order, general damages and costs. The respondent was granted an exparte judgment on 24 November 2021. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2023 to set aside the exparte judgment, which was dismissed. The applicant was committed to civil prison for over six months as a judgment debtor. The applicant then filed the instant application on 10 July 2024 seeking extension of time to appeal the exparte judgment, arguing that she was not aware of her right to appeal because the matter was heard exparte and she was not notified by the trial magistrate.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has shown good cause for the court to grant an extension of time to file an appeal out of time.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Costs of the application to abide the results of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Good Cause — Meaning and Application
Under Section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, an appellate court may admit an appeal after the prescribed limitation period has elapsed if the applicant shows 'good cause', which means a legally sufficient reason that prevented the applicant from filing the appeal within the prescribed time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Factors to Consider
In determining whether to grant an extension of time to appeal, the court must consider several factors including the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the possibility or chances of success of the appeal, and the degree of prejudice to the other party. The discretion must be exercised judicially on proper analysis of the facts and proper application of the law.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Exparte Proceedings — Lack of Notice
Where a matter was heard and decided exparte and the applicant was not notified of the right to appeal or the time within which to exercise that right, and was subsequently imprisoned as a judgment debtor, this constitutes good cause for granting an extension of time to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act — Deciding Matters on Merits
The administration of justice requires that the substance of disputes be investigated and decided on their merits. The court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to grant an extension of time where it would not be just to lock the applicant out and where matters should be handled on merits interparties.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Kiboro v Posts & Telecommunications Corporation (1974) 1 EA 155
  • Pinnacle Projects Limited v Business in Motion (HCMA No. 362 of 2010)
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Muzamil Ayile v Rose Tarapke & 6 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2013)
  • Boney Katatumba v Waheed Karim (SCCA No. 27 of 2007)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (SCCA No. 12 of 2014)
  • Re Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira (1992-93) HCB 835

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Leya Burakali v Ssekirime Godfrey (Miscellaneous Application 22 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 653 (14 July 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.