Wakilii

Nagawa Sarah and Another v Mubiru Swaibu and Others (Miscellaneous Application 23 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 348 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enlargement of time to serve memorandum of appeal out of time, arising from Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2022
Decision
Application granted; applicants permitted to serve memorandum of appeal out of time by substituted service

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 the applicants leave to serve their memorandum of appeal out of time by way of substituted service. The court held that where advocates instructed in time fail to take necessary procedural steps, and there is no evidence the client contributed to the delay, the mistakes and dilatory conduct of counsel should not be visited upon the litigant. The application was allowed with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Outcome

Application granted; applicants permitted to serve memorandum of appeal out of time by substituted service

Facts

The applicants sought enlargement of time to serve a memorandum of appeal arising from Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2022. The applicants had instructed advocates in time, but the advocates failed to file the reply within the prescribed time. There was no explanation for the advocates' failure, and no evidence that the applicants contributed to the delay. The 4th respondent, represented by counsel, did not object to the application. The remaining respondents were served by substituted service and did not appear.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have shown good cause for enlargement of time to serve the memorandum of appeal out of time.

Orders

  • The applicants are granted leave to serve the memorandum of appeal out of time by way of substituted service.
  • The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Principles for Grant
An order for enlargement of time to serve a pleading should ordinarily be granted unless the applicant is guilty of unexplained and inordinate delay, has not presented a reasonable explanation for the failure to file within the prescribed time, or the extension would be prejudicial to the respondent.
Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Good Cause
Grant of extension of time is discretionary and depends on proof of good cause showing that the justice of the matter warrants such an extension. The court must balance considerations of access to justice against the desire for finality in litigation.
Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Counsel's Mistakes
Mistakes, faults, lapses or dilatory conduct of counsel should not be visited upon the litigant where the litigant instructed the advocates in time and did not contribute to the failure to comply with procedural requirements.
Civil Procedure — Administration of Justice — Substance over Technicality
The administration of justice normally requires that the substance of all disputes should be investigated and decided on their merits, and errors or lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from pursuit of their rights. Denying a subject a hearing should be the last resort of court.

Cases cited (15)

  • Mugo v Wanjiri [1970] EA 481
  • Pinnacle Projects Limited v Business In Motion Consultants Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)
  • Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdmer Bank [1971] EA 17
  • G M Combined (U) Limited v A K Detergents (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Rossette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
  • Shanti v Hindocha and Others [1973] EA 207
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
  • Tiberio Okeny and Another v Attorney General and Two Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)
  • Phillip Keipto Chemwolo and Another v Augustine Kubende [1986] KLR 495
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Ggoloba Godfrey v Harriet Kizito (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2006)
  • Zam Nalumansi v Sulaiman Bale (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 1999)
  • Tight Security Ltd v Chartis Uganda Insurance Company Limited and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nagawa Sarah and Another v Mubiru Swaibu and Others (Miscellaneous Application 23 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 348 (25 March 2026)
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.