Wakilii

Nabatanzi v Binsobedde (Civil Application 6 of 1987)

Supreme Court · [1990] UGSC 25 · 1990 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for leave to extend time to file a memorandum and record of appeal out of time, under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed; the applicant remained out of time to appeal

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 8 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 8 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 31 citing cases on record, 19 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 court held that the applicant had not shown sufficient reason under Rule 4 to extend time for filing her appeal. Sufficient reason must relate to the inability or failure to take the required step in time, and the likelihood that an appeal will succeed is not, of itself, sufficient reason. The applicant's counsel did not formally request the record of proceedings until about four months after the ruling, and his claim that the case file was missing was contradicted by the record, which showed he was actively appearing in the matter during that period. There being no diligence and no sufficient reason, the application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed; the applicant remained out of time to appeal

Facts

The applicant was the plaintiff in a High Court civil suit which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 2 May 1986 when neither she nor her counsel appeared. Her application to set aside that dismissal was refused by Kato, J on 2 October 1986. The applicant wished to appeal but did not file the memorandum and record of appeal within the time required (by 14 December 1986). Her counsel, Mr. Mugenyi, swore that he had been unable to obtain the record because the High Court file could not be traced between 9 October 1986 and June 1987. However, the record showed that on 21 November 1986 the same counsel had filed an application for stay of execution in the case, and he did not formally request the proceedings and ruling until about four months after the ruling was delivered, undermining the claim that the file was unavailable.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court to justify an extension of time within which to file the memorandum and record of appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Meaning of 'Sufficient Reason'
Under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court the court has wide powers to extend time provided sufficient reason is shown, and what amounts to sufficient reason depends on the circumstances of each case and must relate to the inability or failure to take the particular step in time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Prospects of Success Insufficient
The fact that an intended appeal appears likely to succeed cannot, of itself, amount to sufficient reason for extending time within which to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Diligence and Dilatory Conduct
Where the delay in filing an appeal is attributable to the applicant's or counsel's own dilatory conduct rather than to the court's failure to supply documents, no sufficient reason is established and the application to extend time will be refused.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Mugo v Wanjiru [1970] EA 481
  • Bhatt v Injurant Singh [1962] EA 497
  • Shanti v Hindocha and others [1973] EA 207

Cases citing this judgment (30)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabatanzi v Binsobedde (Civil Application 6 of 1987) [1990] UGSC 25 (2 February 1990)
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.