Wakilii

Nima Bernice Soigi and Another v Tamira Awo Emily Grace Mbulaiteye (Miscellaneous Application 81 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 534 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time against a 2014 judgment, arising from a dismissed 2014 appeal
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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 dismissed an application for leave to appeal out of time on two grounds. First, the application was res judicata because the earlier appeal (Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2014) had been dismissed under Order 5 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to serve the memorandum of appeal, constituting a final order. The proper remedy was an appeal or review of that dismissal, not a fresh application for leave to appeal the original 2014 judgment. Second, the application was filed beyond the mandatory 14-day period prescribed by Rule 39(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules Direction 1996, rendering it time-barred.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Respondent obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 on 30 May 2014 concerning land at Budaka district. The late Nima Gamaliel Kubonaku filed Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2014 through Wagira Advocates, but the appeal was dismissed on 5 May 2025 for failure to serve the memorandum of appeal on the Respondent within 21 days as required by Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicants, suing as administrators of the late Nima Gamaliel Kubonaku's estate, filed this application on 4 June 2025 seeking leave to appeal the original 2014 judgment out of time. They argued that the mistake of their former advocates should not be visited upon them and that the matter involved land and jurisdictional issues requiring determination on merit. The Respondent opposed, arguing res judicata, abuse of process, and inordinate delay.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for leave to appeal out of time is res judicata given that Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2014 was dismissed under Order 5 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the application was filed within the 14-day period prescribed by Rule 39(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules Direction 1996.
  3. Whether the applicants are guilty of inordinate delay.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Res Judicata — Effect of Dismissal under Order 5 Rule 3
Where an appeal has been dismissed under Order 5 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to serve the memorandum of appeal within the statutory timeline, that dismissal constitutes a final order of court. An applicant cannot bring a fresh application for leave to appeal the original judgment; the proper remedy is to appeal or seek review of the dismissal order itself.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Application for Leave to Appeal
Under Rule 39(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules Direction 1996, where an appeal lies with leave of the High Court, the application for leave must be made informally at the time the decision is given or, failing that, by notice of motion within fourteen days of the decision. An application filed beyond this period is time-barred.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Availability of Specific Remedies
A court's inherent powers may only be invoked as a last resort. Where specific statutory remedies are available, it is an abuse of both the rules of procedure and substantive law to invoke the court's inherent powers.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • James Kakinya v Ngarambe David (Miscellaneous Application No. 807 of 2021)
  • Sam Akankwasa v United Bank of Africa (Miscellaneous Application No. 1233 of 2017)
  • Sam Akankwata v United Bank of Africa (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 2019)
  • Re Ranch on the Lake Ltd (HCT. 00. CC. MA. 537 of 2005) [2005] UG CommC 47

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nima Bernice Soigi and Another v Tamira Awo Emily Grace Mbulaiteye (Miscellaneous Application 81 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 534 (20 May 2026)
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.