Wakilii

Maberi Hassan and Others v P.R. Patel and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 214 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1077 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time against a High Court appellate judgment
Decision
Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed with costs to the respondents

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

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed. The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the nine-year delay in seeking leave to appeal, having obtained letters of administration in 2016 but only filing the application in 2024. The court found no arguable grounds of appeal with reasonable prospects of success and noted that the deceased was represented in the original appeal proceedings.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicants sought leave to appeal out of time against a High Court appellate judgment delivered on 28 May 2015 in HCT-04-CV-CA-0066-2012. The applicants claimed that their late father, John Wasike Matanda, died on 21 December 2014 before the judgment was delivered and was not properly represented in the appeal. Letters of administration were granted on 22 March 2016. The underlying dispute concerned land that had been in litigation since 1983, originating from Civil Suit No. 23 of 1983 between Uganda Commercial Bank and J.W. Matanda. The first respondent purchased the suit land through court auction. The matter proceeded through multiple suits and appeals before Justice Henry Kawesa ruled in favour of P.R. Patel in 2015. The applicants filed the present application on 25 September 2024, nine years after obtaining letters of administration.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises any grounds for the grant of leave to appeal out of time.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal Out of Time — Sufficient Cause
Leave to appeal out of time under section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act can only be granted where the applicant demonstrates sufficient cause or good reason for the delay, which must relate to circumstances that prevented the timely filing of the appeal rather than a wrong decision to pursue alternative remedies.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal Out of Time — Unreasonable Delay
A delay of nine years in seeking leave to appeal out of time, where letters of administration were obtained within one year of the judgment but the application was only filed nine years later, constitutes unreasonable delay and dilatory conduct that the court cannot condone.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Arguable Grounds
An applicant seeking leave to appeal must show either that the intended appeal has a reasonable chance of success or that there are arguable grounds of appeal, and must not be guilty of dilatory conduct.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Sango Bay v Dresduer Bank [1971] EA 17
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
  • Gideon Mosa Onchwat v Kenya Oil Company Ltd & Another [2017] KLR
  • Parimal V Veena

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Maberi Hassan and Others v P.R. Patel and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 214 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1077 (15 October 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.