Wakilii

Multiple and Professional Services Ltd and P. Ssentamu v Arvind City Properties Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application) [1997] UGCA 5

Court of Appeal · 1997 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file an appeal against a High Court judgment
Decision
Extension of time granted; notice of appeal to be lodged within 7 days

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 applicants sought an extension of time to file an appeal against a High Court judgment delivered on 2 September 1997, the application being filed about one month later. The delay was attributed to the appointment of their conducting advocate as a High Court judge a day after judgment, requiring engagement of a new advocate. The Court held that the delay arose through counsel's absence and was short, and that the applicants had acted with considerable diligence by securing a new advocate within eight days of obtaining one. The Court granted the extension of time, directing that the notice of appeal be lodged within seven days, with costs to be in the cause.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; notice of appeal to be lodged within 7 days

Facts

Judgment in H.C.C.S. No. 651 of 1992 was delivered on 2 September 1997. The applicants, who were defendants in that suit, had been represented by Mr. Moses Mukiibi, an advocate who received the judgment on their behalf before being sworn in as an Acting Judge of the High Court the following day. As a result, Mr. Mukiibi could no longer continue to represent the applicants on appeal. The applicants engaged another advocate, and the application for extension of time to appeal was filed on 8 October 1997, about one month after judgment but only eight days after obtaining the new advocate. The applicants contended that the new advocate required time to access the judgment, peruse it, and discuss it with the applicants before deciding to appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants advanced sufficient reasons to justify an extension of time to file an appeal.

Orders

  • Extension of time to file an appeal granted.
  • Notice of Appeal to be lodged within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time to Appeal — Sufficient Reason — Delay Through Counsel's Absence
Where delay in filing an appeal arises through the absence of counsel and the delay is short, the court may exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time, and in such cases the merits of the intended appeal need not be examined.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Diligence of Applicant
An applicant who engages a new advocate within a short period after the original advocate becomes unavailable demonstrates considerable diligence, which supports the grant of an extension of time to appeal.

Cases cited (1)

  • Shi~Construction Co. Ltd vs. Endesha Enterprises Ltd [1992] IV KARL

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Multiple and Professional Services Ltd and P. Ssentamu v Arvind City Properties Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application) [1997] UGCA 5 (11 December 1997)
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.