Nsubuga & 3 Others v Kamuje (Civil Application 31 of 1997)

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.

Holding

The applicants sought leave to file their appeal out of time, the long delay being attributed to their former counsel's repeated procedural errors. Oder JSC held that under rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court the court's discretion is unfettered, and that a mistake or negligence of an applicant's legal advisor may amount to sufficient cause for an extension of time. On the evidence the inordinate delay had been caused by the applicants' previous counsel, while the applicants themselves had acted promptly once they realised no progress was being made. Sufficient reason having been shown, the application was granted, with the applicants ordered to file their appeal within fourteen days and costs awarded to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for extension of time granted; applicants ordered to file their appeal within fourteen days, with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicants intended to appeal a High Court appellate judgment delivered at Fort Portal on 12 July 1995. After lodging a notice of appeal and applying for the record of proceedings, Tsekooko JSC on 21 March 1997 extended time for them to serve the notice and application on the respondent. Rather than instituting the appeal within sixty days as required by the rules, their former counsel filed an application for leave to file a memorandum of appeal out of time. Karokora JSC struck that application out on 24 November 1997 as misconceived and incompetent, condemning counsel personally in costs for lack of diligence. A week later the applicants, acting in person, filed the present application for extension of time. They subsequently engaged new advocates, who filed an amended notice of motion on 20 February 1998. The intended appeal turned on the interpretation of a sketch plan said to have gone missing from the record of proceedings.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants showed sufficient cause to justify the court's discretion to grant leave to file their appeal out of time.
2. Whether a mistake or negligence of the applicants' former counsel can constitute sufficient cause for an extension of time under rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
3. Whether the inordinate delay was attributable to the applicants' own dilatory conduct rather than to their former counsel.

Orders

• Application granted.
• Applicants to file their appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order.
• Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.78
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.112
• Constitution of Uganda art.280

Cases cited (11)

• Isaac Bishari vs. Yitafoom, Civil Application No.2 of 1994
• Executrix of the Estate of the Late Christine Mary Namatovu Tebajjukira v Shalita (Civil Application No. 8 of 1988)
• Shanti v Hidocha and Others [1973] EA 207
• John William Kihuku & Others vs. Personal Representative of Rt. Rev. Eric Sabiti and Anor (SCU) (unreported)
• Shah Hemraj Bharmal and Brothers vs. Santosh Kumari w/o J.N. Bhola (1961)
• rkian vs. Burn 937 All E.R. 97
• Gatti v Shoosmith [1939] 3 All ER 916
• Shabir Bin Ram Prakarsh Anand (1955) 22 E.A.C.A. 48
• Bray v Bray [1957] EA 302
• Haji Nurdin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
• Alexander Jo Okello vs. Ka...ndo & Co Advocates, Civil Application No.17/96 (SCU) (unreported)

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