M/s Emmaus Foundation Limited & 2 Others v M/s Emmaus Foundation Investments (U) Ltd & Another (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 615 OF 2019)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court held that an application for leave to appeal filed outside the fourteen days prescribed by Rule 40(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules is incompetent. Where a specific statutory provision for extension of time exists under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act, a party cannot invoke the court's inherent power under Section 98. The application must be dismissed, and a subsequent application for extension of time cannot resurrect an already incompetent application.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; related application for extension of time struck off

Facts

The applicants sought leave to appeal against a decision in H.C.M.A No. 392 of 2018 delivered on 16 August 2019. Under Rule 40(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules, applications for leave to appeal must be filed within fourteen days. The applicants filed their application on 9 September 2019, ten days beyond the prescribed period. The respondent raised preliminary objections on grounds of lateness and improper joinder of the 2nd Respondent, who was not a party to the underlying matter. The applicants conceded the application was filed late but argued the court should exercise inherent power under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to validate it. They later filed H.C.M.A No. 51 of 2020 seeking extension of time after the application for leave had already been filed and fixed for hearing.

Issues

1. Whether the application for leave to appeal filed outside the prescribed fourteen-day period is competent.
2. Whether the court may invoke its inherent power under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to validate an application filed out of time where a specific statutory remedy exists.
3. Whether the 2nd Respondent, who was not a party to the underlying matter from which the appeal arises, is a proper or necessary party to the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs.
• H.C.M.A No. 51 of 2020 struck off as overtaken by events and of no effect.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Act s.96
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Rule 40(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Rule 2(1)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (4)

• Magem Enterprises Limited v Uganda Breweries Ltd [1992] KALR 101
• Biiso v Tibamwenda [1991] HCB 92
• Taparu v Roitel [1965] EA 618
• Musa Sbeity & Another v Akello John (HCMA No. 249 of 2019)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Wabwire v Kazoora (Civil Suit No. 187 of 2019)

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