Wakilii

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

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 154 · 2021 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 to strike out appeal dismissed; appeal validated and to proceed to hearing on merits

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

Held that where an appellant applies promptly for a certified copy of proceedings but is delayed by the court in obtaining it, this furnishes sufficient cause for not filing an appeal in time. Although the memorandum of appeal was filed three days out of time, the delay was caused by counsel's inadvertent miscalculation of the final filing date after the court itself had delayed in supplying the record. Mistakes of counsel should not be visited upon the litigant. The court validated the belated filing of the memorandum of appeal in the interests of justice. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application to strike out appeal dismissed; appeal validated and to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant before the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mengo. Judgment was delivered on 19 September 2019 in favour of the applicant. The respondent requested a record of proceedings on 18 October 2019. The certified record was availed on 7 October 2020, and the respondent filed a memorandum of appeal on 9 November 2020. The applicant applied to strike out the appeal for being filed out of time, arguing it was filed more than thirty days after the decision. The respondent contended that the delay in obtaining the record from the court was not attributable to it, and that counsel inadvertently miscalculated the final filing date as 7 November 2020 (a Saturday), extending to 9 November 2020, when in fact time had run out on 6 November 2020.

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 grant an extension of time and validate the belated filing of the memorandum of appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • The belated filing of the memorandum of appeal is validated.
  • Costs of the application will abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time for filing appeal — Exclusion of time taken by court to prepare record
In computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal, 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.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — Delay caused by court in supplying record
Where an appellant is unable to frame grounds of appeal for want of a certified copy of the decree, order or record of proceedings and has been prompt in making application thereof, and through delay on the part of the court from which appeal is sought has not been able to obtain such certified copy, the applicant thereby furnishes sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, in which case an application for extension of time to appeal will be allowed.
Civil Procedure — Extension of time — Mistakes of counsel not to be visited on litigant
The mistakes, faults, lapses or dilatory conduct of counsel should not be visited on the litigant. Where a step is taken out of time due to counsel's inadvertent error, the court may validate the belated step in the interests of justice.
Civil Procedure — Extension of time — Validation of belated step already taken
An extension of time may be granted even where the step has been taken out of time and before the application. The legal effect of extending time is to validate or excuse the late step taken in the proceedings. The party in default need not take a further step of compliance if that already taken is complete and in proper form.
Civil Procedure — Substantive justice — Administration without undue regard to technicalities
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 (8)

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 Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 858 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 154 (17 January 2021)
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.