Wakilii

Ndahura v Bategeka and 13 Others (Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 428 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file an appeal against a ruling in consolidated civil suits
Decision
Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction

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 lacks jurisdiction to grant extension of time to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Under Rule 5 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, only the Court of Appeal has the mandate to extend time for filing an appeal. The application was misconceived and struck out.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

The applicant sought extension of time to file an appeal against a ruling delivered on 1 June 2023 in consolidated Civil Suits Nos. 52 of 2023 and 249 of 2022. His former lawyers had mistakenly filed an application for review instead of an appeal, which was dismissed. The applicant then instructed new lawyers and filed this application in the High Court seeking extension of time to file the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant an extension of time to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Application struck out with costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Extension of Time — Jurisdiction — Appeals to Court of Appeal
Under Rule 5 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10, only the Court of Appeal has the mandate to grant extension of time for filing an appeal to the Court of Appeal; this jurisdiction is not exercisable concurrently by the High Court.
Jurisdiction — Specific Statutory Provisions — Residual Powers
Where a specific legal provision exists for a remedy, a party cannot have recourse to general residual provisions such as section 33 of the Judicature Act or section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • In the Matter of Ranch on the Lake Ltd (In Receivership) (HCMA No. 537 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Dan Rubomboro and 4 Others (HCMA No. 41 of 2008)
  • Rawal v The Mombasa Hardware Ltd [1968] EA 392

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ndahura v Bategeka and 13 Others (Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 428 (31 May 2024)
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.