Nakyomu v Kasalina and Another (Miscellaneous Application 145 of 2003)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The applicant, appearing in person, sought enlargement of time to lodge a notice of appeal almost two years out of time, blaming her former counsel for failing to file it despite instructions. The Court of Appeal held that for an enlargement of time to be granted under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the applicant must show she was prevented from taking the step at the right time for sufficient reason, and that where the delay is great the facts must be scrutinised more carefully. Although counsel's faults are not generally visited on a litigant, the applicant herself did nothing to verify whether the appeal had been filed. The delay was inexcusable and unexplained, so no sufficient reason was established. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for enlargement of time dismissed with costs to the first respondent

Facts

The applicant, together with her two sisters, was registered in 1985 as administratrix and heir of their late father's estate, comprising land at Kyabakuza estate, Masaka District. They sued in the High Court (Civil Suit No. 451 of 1995) to recover the land, alleging that the late Paulo Muwanga had fraudulently registered himself as proprietor, and that the second respondent, as former Chief Registrar of Titles, connived in the transfer. The respondents denied fraud, asserting Muwanga was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The applicant's two sisters disassociated themselves from the suit, one testifying for the defence. On 12 January 2002, Bossa J dismissed the suit. The applicant claimed she instructed her counsel to file an appeal and that he assured her it had been done, but in November 2003 she discovered no notice of appeal had been lodged. She filed her application for enlargement of time on 18 December 2003, almost two years after judgment.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established sufficient reason for the court to enlarge time within which to lodge a notice of appeal.
2. Whether the alleged failure of the applicant's counsel to file the notice of appeal excused the delay of almost two years.

Orders

• The application is dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the first respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Court of Appeal Rules Directions, 1996 Rule 4
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions, 1996 Rule 75(1)
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions, 1996 Rule 75(2)
• Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Cap 87)

Cases cited (4)

• Attorney General v Oriental Construction Co Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1990)
• Attorney General v Madatali Nazarali Mulji Huda & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1988)
• Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobede (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1987)
• Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Carolyne Nyarupero Atono and 2 Others v Chemonics International Inc (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No.130 of 2025) applied

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