Muhimbise v Mohammed & Another (Civil Application 48 of 2021)
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
On an application under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules for extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a Court of Appeal decision, the single Justice held that sufficient reason was established. The Court of Appeal judgment had been delivered in the absence of the applicant and her counsel, no judgment notice was served, and the respondent's claim that the parties were notified of the judgment date by telephone was not proved. The court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice, granted the application and validated the notice of appeal filed out of time. The respondent's allegation of contempt was declined as a matter for trial.
Outcome
Application granted; notice of appeal filed out of time validated; applicant to serve respondents within 7 days of the ruling
Facts
The applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 222 of 2013 in the Court of Appeal challenging a High Court decision in a dispute over land at Plot 10 Lugard Road, Fort Portal. The Court of Appeal reserved judgment and indicated it would deliver judgment on notice. The judgment was delivered by the Registrar on 3 September 2021 in the absence of the applicant and her counsel. The applicant said she only learned of the judgment on 28 October 2021 when served with a notice to show cause why execution should not issue, and filed her notice of appeal on 29 October 2021, after the statutory time limit. The applicant maintained that no judgment notice was served and no affidavit of service appeared on record. The first respondent contended the parties had been notified of the judgment date by telephone owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, that the applicant was guilty of dilatory conduct, and that she stood in contempt of a consent order requiring deposit of mesne profits.
Issues
- Whether the applicant established sufficient reason under rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules to warrant extension of time to file a notice of appeal, or validation of a notice of appeal filed out of time.
Orders
- The application is granted as prayed.
- The notice of appeal filed by the applicant out of time is validated.
- The applicant shall serve the respondents with the said notice within 7 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
- Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main appeal.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Judicature (Supreme Court Directions) Rules SI No. 13-11 rule 2(2)
- Judicature (Supreme Court Directions) Rules SI No. 13-11 rule 5
- Judicature (Supreme Court Directions) Rules SI No. 13-11 rule 41(2)
- Judicature (Supreme Court Directions) Rules SI No. 13-11 rule 42
- Judicature (Supreme Court Directions) Rules SI No. 13-11 rule 43
Cases cited (8)
- James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises Ltd v Kampala City Council & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)
- Rosette Kizito v Administrator General & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1985)
- Guliano Gariggo v Claudio Casadio (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
- Francis Drake Lubega v Attorney General & 2 Ors (Consolidated Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 31 and 32 of 2011)
- Crane Finance Co. Ltd v Makerere Properties (Civil Application No. 7 of 2007)
- Shanti - vs - Hindocha [1973] E.A. 2A
- The Executrix of the Estate of Christine Mary N Tebajjukiro & Anor v Noel Grace Shalita (Civil Application No. 8 of 1988)
- Boney M. Katotumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.