Wakilii

Nangumya T a Namgumya and Company Advocates v Security Plus (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application 858 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 152 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out appeal for being filed out of time
Decision
Application dismissed; appeal validated and permitted to proceed

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 court validated the respondent's belated filing of a memorandum of appeal filed three days out of time. Although the appeal was filed beyond the 30-day statutory period under section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, the delay in obtaining the certified record of proceedings was attributable to the court, not the respondent. The three-day delay in filing after receiving the record was a mistake of counsel that should not be visited upon the litigant. The court applied the principle of substantive justice under article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and validated the late step, dismissing the application to strike out the appeal.

Outcome

Application dismissed; appeal validated and permitted to proceed

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant before the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mengo in 2013. Judgment was delivered on 19 September 2019 in favour of the applicant. The respondent requested a record of proceedings on 18 October 2019 but received it only on 7 October 2020 due to court delay. The respondent filed a memorandum of appeal on 9 November 2020. The applicant applied to strike out the appeal as having been filed out of time, arguing that the 30-day statutory period under section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act had expired. The respondent contended that the delay in obtaining the record was attributable to the court and that counsel's miscalculation of the filing deadline was an inadvertent error that should not prejudice the client.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's appeal should be struck out for having been filed out of time without leave of court.
  2. Whether the court should validate the belated filing of the memorandum of appeal.

Orders

  • The respondent's belated filing of the memorandum of appeal is validated.
  • The application to strike out the appeal is dismissed.
  • The costs of the application will abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Time — Exclusion of Time Taken by Court to Prepare Record
In computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal prescribed by section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, the time taken by the court or the Registrar in making a copy of the decree or order appealed against and of the proceedings upon which it is founded is excluded under section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Good Cause — Delay Attributable to Court
Where an appellant has been prompt in applying for a certified copy of the decree, order or record of proceedings but has been unable to obtain it due to delay on the part of the court from which the appeal is sought, the appellant furnishes sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, and an application for extension of time to appeal will be allowed.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Validation of Steps Taken Out of Time — Mistake of Counsel
The mistakes, faults, lapses or dilatory conduct of counsel should not be visited upon the litigant. Where a step has been taken out of time due to counsel's inadvertent error, the court may validate the belated step by extending time, provided it does not result in abridging, enlarging or modifying any substantive right.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Validation — Retrospective Effect
An extension of time may be granted even where the step has been taken out of time and before the application for extension. The legal effect of extending time to perform an act out of time when the act has already been duly performed, albeit out of time, is to validate that act or to excuse the late performance of the act.
Constitutional Law — Administration of Justice — Substantive Justice — Article 126(2)(e) — Application to Procedural Rules
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution provides that substantive justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities. Rules of procedure are handmaidens of justice and are to be applied with due regard to the circumstances of each case. Courts should not construe pleadings with such meticulous care or in such a hyper-technical manner so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on trivial grounds.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (13)

  • Maria Onyango Ochola and Others v J. Hannington Wasswa [1996] HCB 43
  • Loi Kageni Kiryapawo v Gole Nicholas Davis (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 15 of 2007)
  • Hajj Mohammed Nyanzi v Ali Sseggane [1992-1993] HCB 218
  • Tight Security Ltd v Chartis Uganda Insurance Co. Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2014)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)
  • Mansukhalal Ramji Karia and Crane Finance Co. Ltd v Attorney General and Two Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 1 of 2003)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • 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)
  • Shanti v Hindocha and Others [1973] 1 EA 207
  • Godfrey Magezi and Another v Sudhir Rupaleria (2) (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 10 of 2002)
  • Crane Finance Co. Ltd v Makerere Properties Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2001)
  • The Executrix of the Estate of Christine Mary N. Tebajjukira and Another v Noel Grace Shalita (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 8 of 1988)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nangumya T a Namgumya and Company Advocates v Security Plus (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application 858 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 152 (7 December 2022)
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.