Manskhlal & Another v Attorney General & 2 Others (Civil Application 1 of 2003)

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

On an application to extend time to file and serve the record of appeal, the single Justice overruled a preliminary objection, holding that Rule 4 permits extension of time whether before or after the act is done, so that a document filed out of time is voidable and may be validated. On the merits, he found the appeal had been lodged 31 days out of time, the registry letter of 13 September 2002 having in fact been delivered. He nonetheless held that the lack of diligence of the applicants' counsel, not attributable to the clients, was sufficient reason under Rule 4, aided by Article 126(2)(e). The application was granted, with costs ordered against the applicants' advocates.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; the appeal already filed deemed validly filed

Facts

The applicants lost an appeal in the Court of Appeal in 2002 and filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court within time. Their counsel applied for a copy of the proceedings to compile the record of appeal. On 13 September 2002 the Court of Appeal Registrar wrote informing counsel the proceedings were ready for collection, but counsel denied receiving that letter. Counsel paid for the proceedings on 11 October 2002 and collected the certified copy on 14 October 2002, on which date the acknowledgement was backdated to 11 October to match the receipt. The appeal was instituted on 11 December 2002, counsel believing the 60-day period ran from the collection date. The respondents contended the appeal was filed out of time, prompting this application for extension of time. The Justice found the 13 September 2002 letter had in fact been delivered, so the appeal was lodged 31 days out of time.

Issues

1. Whether an application for extension of time is competent where the appeal it seeks to validate remains on the record of the court.
2. Whether, on the facts, the appeal was lodged within the prescribed 60 days or out of time.
3. Whether the applicants showed sufficient reason under Rule 4 to justify an extension of time where the delay was caused by the mistake or lack of diligence of their counsel.

Orders

• Preliminary objection to the competence of the application overruled.
• Application for extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal allowed.
• Costs of the application awarded to the respondents, to be paid by the advocates for the applicants.
• The record of appeal already filed deemed to have been validly filed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.42(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.72
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.78(2)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (4)

• Shanti v Hindocha and Others (1973) EA 207
• Crane Finance Vs Makerere Properties Civil Application No. 1 of 2001 (S.Ct) (unreported) / Crane Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Makerere Properties, Civil Application 1 of 2000 (S.Ct) (unreported)
• Yona Kanyomozi v Mort Mart (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 8 of 1998)
• Gatti v Shoosmith [1939] 3 All ER 916

Cases citing this judgment (11)

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.

• Dr Twinobuhingiro Aska and Others v Administrator of the Estate of the Late George William Kabugo (Civil Application No. 140 of 2024)
• Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership v Simba Properties Investment Co. Limited & 5 Others (Taxation Appeal 14 of 2024)
• Ekeu & Another v Attorney General (Taxation Appeal 1 of 2024)
• Nangumya T a Namgumya and Company Advocates v Security Plus (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application 858 of 2021)
• Waira v Kubeketerya (Election Application No. 16 of 2021)
• Visare Uganda Limited v Grant Thonton Management Limited (Civil Appeal 722 of 2021)
• DFCU Bank Limited v Supply Master Uganda Limited and Another (Civil Appeal 1185 of 2021)
• Mavid Pharmacenticals Limited v Royal Group of Pakistan and Another (Miscellaneous Application 871 of 2020)
• Nangumya t a Namgumya and Company Advocates v Security Plus Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 858 of 2021)
• Bahimbise v Rwabinumi [2010] UGSC 26
• Magezi and Anor v Rupaleria (Civil Application 10 of 2002)

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