Wakilii

Nandera Rose and Others v Owoko David Achu (Miscellaneous Application No. 131 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1191 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file memorandum of appeal arising from Chief Magistrate's Court ruling
Decision
Application granted; applicants given 30 days from date of ruling to file and serve memorandum of appeal; trial court ordered to forward certified proceedings within 14 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 High Court granted the applicants extension of time to file their memorandum of appeal, finding that the delay was caused by the trial court's failure to provide certified copies of proceedings and ruling despite repeated requests. The court held that applicants cannot be faulted for mistakes of the court and ordered the trial court to forward certified proceedings within 14 days.

Outcome

Application granted; applicants given 30 days from date of ruling to file and serve memorandum of appeal; trial court ordered to forward certified proceedings within 14 days

Facts

The applicants sought to appeal a ruling delivered by the Chief Magistrate's Court of Iganga at Namayingo on 21 November 2023. Their lawyers requested certified court proceedings and ruling on 23 November 2023. A notice of appeal was filed on 29 February 2024 and a memorandum of appeal on 16 August 2024, both outside the statutory 30-day period. The applicants contended they faced challenges obtaining certified copies from the trial court. The Registrar of the High Court wrote to the trial magistrate on 29 February 2024 and again on 7 June 2024 requesting the file and certified copies, but received no response. The respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the applicants' affidavit.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants' affidavit in support was competent.
  2. Whether the applicants should be granted extension of time to file their memorandum of appeal out of time.
  3. Whether the delay in filing the memorandum of appeal was attributable to the applicants or to the trial court.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection challenging competence of applicant's affidavit overruled.
  • Time extended for applicants to file their Memorandum of Appeal and serve the same within 30 days of this Ruling.
  • Trial court ordered to immediately forward a typed and certified copy of the record of proceedings together with all relevant exhibits not later than 14 days from today.
  • Learned Registrar ordered to enforce this order forthwith.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Delay Attributable to Court
Where delay in filing a memorandum of appeal is caused by the trial court's failure to provide certified copies of proceedings despite timely application and repeated requests, the appellate court will grant extension of time as the applicant cannot be faulted for mistakes of the court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Limitation Period — Computation — Time Taken by Court Excluded
Under section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, in computing the limitation period for filing an appeal, the time taken by the court in making a copy of the order, decree or proceedings appealed against is excluded from the computation.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Defects — Curable Under Article 126(2)(e)
A defect in an affidavit where the deponent states authority to swear on behalf of other applicants but otherwise depones to facts within her own knowledge is curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which enjoins courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Maria Onyango Ochola and Others v J. Hannington Wasswa [1996] HCB 43
  • Geofrey Nangumya T/a Nangumya & Co. Advocates v Security Plus (U) Ltd (HCMA 858 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nandera Rose and Others v Owoko David Achu (Miscellaneous Application No. 131 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1191 (10 October 2025)
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.