Nadya Dimitrova Mileva v KCB Bank Uganda Limited [2025] UGCOMMC 540
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
Application for leave to appeal dismissed because it was filed outside the statutory 14-day time limit prescribed by Rule 40(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions. The court held that compliance with procedural timelines is a threshold requirement for granting leave to appeal, regardless of the merits of the intended grounds of appeal.
Outcome
Application dismissed for being filed out of time
Facts
The applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 867 of 2022 against the respondent bank seeking recovery of UGX 121,025,185 allegedly withdrawn from her account without consent. The suit was dismissed on 18 July 2025 under Order 17 rule 4 for non-appearance after the applicant failed to attend hearings scheduled for 24 June 2025 and 2 July 2025. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1648 of 2025 seeking reinstatement, claiming she was never properly notified of the hearing dates. That application was dismissed on 23 August 2025 on grounds that the applicant had not shown sufficient cause for reinstatement. The applicant then sought leave to appeal that dismissal by filing the present application on 25 September 2025.
Issues
- Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal against the ruling dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 1648 of 2025?
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Costs not addressed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature Act s.33
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 r.2
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 r.4
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 r.4
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 r.3
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.40(1)
Cases cited (4)
- Shah v Attorney General (1971) EA 50
- GM Combined (U) Ltd v AK Detergents (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1994)
- Kayaga v Waligo (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 80 of 2012)
- Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.