Wakilii

Nsubuga Senfuma v Yahaya Serugga [1981] UGSC 2

Supreme Court · 1981 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to lodge an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court judgment
Decision
Extension of time granted; applicant given five weeks within which to file his appeal

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

On an application under rule 4 to extend time to lodge an appeal, the court held that where an intending appellant has exercised due diligence but is prevented from obtaining the record in time by the High Court Civil Registry, it would be a denial of justice to refuse an extension. The delay here was solely attributable to the Registry, so the applicant could not be blamed. The court nonetheless emphasised that the proviso to rule 81(1) — excluding the time taken to prepare and deliver the record where the request is copied to the respondent — should be used to avoid such applications altogether, and that rule 81 governs the institution of appeals while rule 4 applies to other matters. The application was granted.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; applicant given five weeks within which to file his appeal

Facts

The applicant sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a High Court judgment delivered on 17 January 1980. Through his advocate, he filed a notice of appeal on 24 January 1980 and, on the same day, applied for a copy of the proceedings. The High Court Civil Registry did not deliver the copy until 18 May 1980, by which time the 60 days within which to lodge the appeal had expired. The applicant therefore applied under rule 4 of the Rules of the Court for an extension of time, contending that his failure to lodge the appeal in time was attributable to the Registry's delay in supplying the proceedings. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that it would have been unnecessary had counsel complied with the proviso to rule 81(1), and that the supporting affidavit failed to state the nature of the case.

Issues

  1. Whether time for lodging an appeal should be extended where the delay was caused by the High Court Civil Registry's failure to supply a copy of the proceedings within the prescribed time.
  2. Whether the application for extension of time was unnecessary because counsel failed to comply with the proviso to rule 81(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  3. Whether the applicant's supporting affidavit was required to state the nature of the case to enable the court to assess whether refusal would cause a denial of justice.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicant given five weeks within which to file his appeal.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time to Appeal — Delay Caused by Court Registry
Where an intending appellant has exercised all due diligence and done all in his power to obtain the necessary copies of documents in time but has been prevented from doing so by the High Court Civil Registry's failure to supply them, it would, absent other circumstances, be a denial of justice to refuse to extend the time for lodging the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Institution of Appeals — Proviso to Rule 81(1) — Exclusion of Time
Where an application for a copy of the proceedings is made within 30 days of judgment and a copy of the request is given to the respondent, the time certified by the registrar as required for preparing and delivering the record is excluded in computing the period for instituting an appeal, rendering an application for extension of time unnecessary.
Civil Procedure — Governing Rule — Rule 81 versus Rule 4
Rule 81 is the enabling rule for the institution of appeals and governs the prescribed time limit; rule 4 should be left to apply to other matters not concerned with that time limit. Where a specific rule deals with the subject matter it must be followed.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Supporting Affidavit — Statement of Nature of Case
An applicant for extension of time should support the application with a sufficient statement of the nature of the judgment and his reasons for desiring to appeal, so the court can determine whether refusal would cause injustice; though where the fault lies with the court this may be unnecessary, compliance remains advisable because the court need not extend time in a manifestly hopeless case.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Rules of the Court of Appeal 1972 r.4
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal 1972 r.81(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal 1972 r.81(2)
  • East African Court of Appeal Rules 1954 r.9

Cases cited (3)

  • Bhatt v Tejwant Singh [1967] EA 497
  • Bakitara Transport Bus Co Ltd v Biribonwa [1979] HCB 95
  • Shah v D Jamnadas & Co Ltd [1959] EA 838

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nsubuga Senfuma v Yahaya Serugga [1981] UGSC 2 (6 November 1981)
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.