Magandazi v Maviri (Miscellaneous Application No. 990 of 2014)

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

Held that where a litigant defaults on a time limit set by court order, Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act gives the court discretion to extend that period even after expiry. An amendment correcting a drafting error from security for costs to security for performance of the decree does not introduce new grounds and falls within Order 6 rule 20. An undated affidavit is a directory rather than mandatory requirement under Section 6 of the Oaths Act and does not go to the root of the case. Extension of time granted.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; applicant given 10 days to deposit certificate of title, whereupon the underlying appeal will proceed

Facts

The applicant is an appellant in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2013 arising from a decision of the Chief Magistrate's Court at Mengo. Faced with threatened execution, he filed Miscellaneous Application No. 762 of 2014 for stay of execution. The respondent consented on condition that the applicant deposit security for due performance of the decree within 21 days. The court granted the stay on those terms, requiring deposit of a land title in the applicant's names. The applicant could not comply within the 21-day period because he was still processing the transfer of the title into his name. By the time the transfer was completed, the 21 days had expired. The applicant then filed this application seeking extension of time to deposit the security.

Issues

1. Whether the court should extend time within which to deposit security for the due performance of the decree after the 21-day period granted by the court had expired.
2. Whether an undated affidavit renders an application fatally defective.
3. Whether a Notice of Motion can be amended without leave of court.

Orders

• Application granted.
• Extension of time granted to the applicant to deposit security for due performance of the decree.
• Applicant allowed 10 days within which to deposit the certificate of title.
• Appeal to proceed upon deposit of security.
• Costs will be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.96
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 7
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 20
• Oaths Act Cap 19 s.6

Cases cited (8)

• Kabu Auctioneers and Court Bailiffs & Another v F.K Motors Ltd (Civil Application No. 29 of 2009)
• Balikuddembe Jumba Peter & 2 Others v Jjagwe Mbuga & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 976 of 2012)
• Teddy Namazzi Vs Anne Sibo [1986] HCB 58
• Godfrey Magezi v Sudhir Rupaleria (2005) 1 ULSR 82
• Saggu v Road Master Cycles (U) Ltd (2002) 1 EA 258
• Francis Wazarwahi Bwengye Vs Haki. W. Bonera HCT-OO-CV-CA-0033-2009
• Re Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira [1992-93] HCB 85
• Kikongo Noelina v Electoral Commission & Yusufu Zulaika (Election Appeal No. 75 of 2011)

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.

• James Mansa v Manyindo Paul and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1052 of 2015)

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