Wakilii

Mufumbiro David v Farouq Ssabwe and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1159 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 242 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file notice of appeal out of time arising from Civil Suit No. 0166 of 2019
Decision
Leave granted to file notice of appeal out of time; applicant given 14 days to file notice of appeal

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 High Court granted leave to file a notice of appeal out of time where the applicant's former lawyers failed to inform him of the judgment delivered via email and ECCMIS, and failed to take steps to appeal despite instructions. The court held that negligence of counsel in tracking judgment delivery and prosecuting the appeal constitutes sufficient cause, and the client should not be penalised for counsel's dilatory conduct. The right of appeal is a cornerstone of the rule of law and access to justice.

Outcome

Leave granted to file notice of appeal out of time; applicant given 14 days to file notice of appeal

Facts

Judgment in Civil Suit No. 0166 of 2019 was delivered on 30 January 2025 via email and ECCMIS to the applicant's former lawyers, Lwere Lwanyaga & Co. Advocates. The applicant repeatedly inquired about the judgment but was told it had not been delivered. On 14 April 2025, the applicant personally attended court and discovered the judgment had been delivered. He instructed his former lawyers to appeal but they took no action. The applicant then engaged new lawyers who filed this application on 16 May 2025, seeking leave to file a notice of appeal out of time. The 14-day statutory period for filing a notice of appeal expired on 13 February 2025. The respondents opposed the application, arguing the applicant failed to provide evidence of instructions to former counsel and was guilty of inordinate delay.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has furnished sufficient grounds to be granted leave to file an appeal out of time against the Judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 0166 of 2019

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The applicant is allowed 14 days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal in this court and thereafter take the necessary steps to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal within the time prescribed by law.
  • The Applicant shall meet the costs of this Application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Negligence of Counsel
Negligence of counsel in failing to track delivery of judgment and inform the client, and in failing to take steps to appeal despite instructions, constitutes sufficient cause for granting leave to file a notice of appeal out of time, and the client should not be penalised for counsel's dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Requirements for Grant
For court to grant an extension of time to file an appeal, the applicant must prove: (a) there is an enabling provision in the statute providing for the time within which to appeal; (b) the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period; (c) the applicant is not guilty of dilatory conduct resulting in inordinate delay; and (d) the extension will not be prejudicial to the respondents.
Administrative Law — Access to Justice — Right of Appeal — Constitutional Protection
The right of appeal is one of the cornerstones of the rule of law. To deny an applicant that right where counsel's negligence caused the delay would deny access to justice and fair hearing, both of which are constitutionally guaranteed.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Prejudice to Respondent
Where respondents are in possession of the subject matter of the appeal and pending execution relates only to costs yet to be taxed, no significant prejudice is occasioned to the respondents by granting leave to file an appeal out of time.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (9)

  • Muzamil Ayile v Rose Taraple (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0024 of 2013)
  • Andre Bamaya v Shamsherali Zaver (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2001)
  • Tiberio Okeny and Another v Attorney General and 2 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)
  • Afayo Luiji and Another v Izio Enzama Akueson (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0073 of 2017)
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Shanti v Hindocha and Others [1973] EA 207
  • Banco Arab Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1992] EA 22
  • Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Mary Kyamulabi v Ahamad Zirondomu (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1979)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mufumbiro_David_v_Farouq_Ssabwe_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1159_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_242_(18_August_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.