Wakilii

Nyakana v Nyakana (Civil Application 4 of 1995)

Supreme Court · [1995] UGSC 26 · 1995 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for extension of time to file a notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal out of time against a High Court judgment.
Decision
Application for extension of time to appeal refused and dismissed with costs

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 Supreme Court refused the application for extension of time. Sufficient reason normally relates to an inability or failure to take a step in time, and the most persuasive reason is that delay was not caused or contributed to by the applicant's own dilatory conduct. Here the applicant had been less than diligent in pursuing his intended appeal, took nearly three years to obtain the record, and gave no explanation for repeated long delays. This was a second application on the same grounds with the same counsel, so the persistent default could not be blamed on counsel alone. The applicant also failed to state the nature of the judgment and his reasons for appealing sufficiently. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time to appeal refused and dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant and respondent are brother and sister disputing a contested will concerning the estate of their deceased father. The applicant was the defendant in a High Court suit at Fort Portal and lost; judgment was delivered by Mukanza, J. on 15 February 1991. A notice of appeal was filed and the record of proceedings was certified complete on 13 October 1993. A first appeal (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1993) was struck out/withdrawn as incompetent for want of a decree and for being filed in the wrong court. After an extension of time was granted on 15 September 1994 by Odoki, J.S.C., the applicant filed a second appeal but omitted the order extending time, and that appeal was struck out as incompetent on 6 December 1994. The present application for extension of time was not filed until 20 January 1995. The applicant attributed the failures to his successive counsel.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient reason to justify an extension of time to file his notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal out of time.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused.
  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason
The likelihood that an intended appeal will succeed cannot of itself amount to sufficient reason for an extension of time; it is only one of the factors a court may consider in deciding whether sufficient reason has been shown.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Diligence and Dilatory Conduct
Sufficient reason normally relates to the inability or failure to take a particular step in time, and the most persuasive reason an applicant can show is that the delay was not caused or contributed to by his own dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Negligence of Counsel
Although the negligence of chosen counsel will not ordinarily be visited on a vigilant litigant, where the application is a second application on the same grounds with the same counsel and the applicant has himself been wanting in diligence, the persistent default cannot be blamed on counsel alone.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Supporting Affidavit
An applicant for extension of time must support the application by a sufficient statement of the nature of the judgment and his reasons for desiring to appeal, so as to enable the court to determine whether a refusal would appear to cause injustice.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.1(3)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.42(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.93(1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Isaac Bishari v. Vitafoam Supreme Court Civil Application No. ... of 1993
  • Commissioner of Transport v Attorney General of Uganda (1959) E.A. 329
  • Balchand Bhagwanji Shah v D. Jamnadas & Co. Ltd (1959) E.A. 838
  • Mugo & Another v Wanjiru & Another (1970) E.A. 481
  • Shanti v Hindocha & Others (1973) E.A. 207
  • Bhai's case (1962) E.A. 497
  • Mary Kyomugabi v Ahamad Zirondomu (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1979)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyakana v Nyakana (Civil Application 4 of 1995) [1995] UGSC 26 (18 August 1995)
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.