Wakilii

Matovu v Makerere University & 2 Others (Civil Application 11 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 11 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for an extension of time within which to lodge an appeal against a Court of Appeal judgment
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed; orders sought declined

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 applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a Court of Appeal judgment, claiming he was unaware it had been delivered because no notice was given. The Supreme Court held that an extension under rule 5 of the Rules of the Court and section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act requires sufficient cause, which must explain the inability to act in time and be free of dilatory conduct. The applicant had taken roughly a year and a half to check the status of his appeal without explanation; being unrepresented did not excuse that laxity. The court further found, on perusing the Court of Appeal judgment, that the intended appeal had no prospect of success. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed; orders sought declined

Facts

The applicant, a researcher in the first respondent's faculty, won a post-doctoral research grant. The final disbursement of USD 1,499.25 was transferred to the first respondent's faculty bank account for onward payment to the applicant. The respondents later said the funds could not be credited due to incorrect account particulars supplied by the applicant and were returned to the remitter on 2 September 2010 per the remitter's instructions. The applicant's High Court mandamus application was dismissed, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal on 16 July 2019 and reserved judgment to be delivered on notice; it delivered judgment on 11 November 2019. The applicant said he received no notice and only discovered the judgment when he visited the Court of Appeal registry on 5 January 2021. He lodged a notice of appeal and obtained certified copies in April 2021, then applied to the Supreme Court for an extension of time to appeal, the statutory period having expired.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause to warrant an extension of time within which to lodge his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • The orders sought are declined.
  • Each party to meet its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time to Appeal — Requirement of Sufficient Cause
Under rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act, time to perform an act may be extended only where the applicant shows sufficient cause; sufficient cause must relate to the inability or failure to take the necessary steps and the applicant must not be guilty of dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Discretion of the Court
The grant of an extension of time is discretionary and depends on proof of good cause showing that the justice of the matter warrants the extension; what constitutes sufficient cause depends on the circumstances of each case.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Duty of Self-Represented Litigant to Follow Up
A self-represented litigant bears the same duty as a represented party to keep timely informed of the status of his case, and failure to follow up over an extended period amounts to inordinate delay that is not excused by the absence of legal representation.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Merits of Intended Appeal
An extension of time should be refused where the applicant is guilty of unexplained inordinate delay and has not demonstrated that the intended appeal is meritorious and likely to succeed.
Civil Procedure — Time for Appeal — Section 79(1)(a) Civil Procedure Act
Every appeal must be filed within thirty days from the date of the decree or order under section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, except where otherwise specifically provided by law.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owoto (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Shanti v Hindocha and others [1973] EA 207

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Matovu v Makerere University & 2 Others (Civil Application 11 of 2021) [2022] UGSC 11 (28 July 2022)
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.