Wakilii

Nsubuga v Attorney General (Civil Application 58 of 1998)

Court of Appeal · [1999] UGCA 48 · 1999 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time within which to serve a notice of appeal on the respondent
Decision
Extension of time granted; applicant to serve the notice of appeal within seven days

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 for extension of time to serve a notice of appeal, the court held that a document is not properly filed until filing fees are paid. Where two High Court stamps bore different dates but the fees were paid on 9th November 1998, and the supporting affidavit that filing occurred on that date was unrebutted, the notice was deemed filed on 9th November. Delay attributable entirely to the court registry, over which neither the litigant nor counsel had control, constitutes sufficient cause. The application was allowed and time extended.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; applicant to serve the notice of appeal within seven days

Facts

The applicants lost High Court Civil Suit No. 702 of 1995, judgment being delivered on 27th October 1998. Their counsel's clerk, Harriet Nanyonjo, filed a notice of appeal in the High Court Civil registry and paid filing fees of Ug. Shs. 3000 on 9th November 1998. She repeatedly checked the registry, being told the notice was in the Registrar's chambers, and only received the signed and sealed notice on 19th November 1998, whereupon she served it on the respondent the same day. This was beyond the seven-day period prescribed for service. The respondent contended the notice was lodged on 11th November 1998, relying on a High Court stamp bearing that date, and asserted from the bar that the clerk's affidavit was false. The notice bore two High Court stamps with different dates; one recorded the fee payment on 9th November 1998. The respondent filed no affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to warrant an extension of time to serve the notice of appeal.
  2. Whether the notice of appeal was filed on 9th November 1998 or on 11th November 1998, and the effect of the date of payment of filing fees.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant to serve the notice of appeal within seven days from the date of the ruling.
  • Memorandum of appeal and record of appeal to be filed and served within thirty days from the date of the ruling.
  • Costs to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Delay Attributable to Court
Delay in taking a required procedural step which is entirely attributable to the court registry, and over which neither the litigant nor his counsel has any control, constitutes sufficient cause for the grant of an extension of time.
Civil Procedure — Filing of Documents — Payment of Filing Fees
A document is not properly filed in court until the requisite filing fees have been paid or the advocate holds a general deposit in court for payment of such fees.
Evidence — Affidavits — Unrebutted Averments Presumed True
Where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and are not denied or rebutted by the opposite party, the presumption is that such facts are accepted as true; a statement from the bar that the affidavit is false is insufficient to displace it.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.4
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.42
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.43
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.75(1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Mugo & others v Wanjiru & Another [1970] E.A. 481
  • Shanti v Hindocha and others [1973] 207
  • Isaac Bishari v Vita Foam S.C. Civil App. No. 2/94 (unreported)
  • Unta Export Ltd v Customs [1970] EA 648
  • Massa v Ochen 1978 HCB 297
  • Balwantrai D. Bhatt v Tejwant Singh & Another [1962] E.A. 497

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nsubuga v Attorney General (Civil Application 58 of 1998) [1999] UGCA 48 (8 April 1999)
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.