Wakilii

Nyirabarore Vannis & Anor v Nyirakubanza Sarafina & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 0037 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2018] UGCA 73 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal under Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Decision
Application for extension of time 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 Court of Appeal dismissed an application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal. The court held that it could not exercise its discretionary power under Rule 5 to extend time where there was no evidence that a notice of appeal had been lodged under Rule 76, nor that it had been served on the respondents under Rule 78. The applicants' letter requesting certified copies of proceedings bore no court endorsement, so service on the respondents could not be proved as required by Rule 83(3). Service and proof of service are mandatory. The applicants also failed, without justifiable reason, to comply with an earlier court order to file and serve the record of appeal. No sufficient reason was shown.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicants were dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court in High Court Civil Suit No. 81 of 2005 and sought to appeal. Judgment was delivered on 10 July 2017. The applicants claimed to have filed a notice of appeal within time and were awaiting certification of the record of proceedings before their appeal could be heard. They applied for an extension of time to file the memorandum of appeal. The respondents opposed the application, contending it was improperly before the court because no notice of appeal had ever been served on them, and the letter requesting certified copies of proceedings had never been received by the High Court at Kabale nor served on the respondents. A letter dated 14 November 2017 requesting certified copies of the record was attached to the application but bore no court endorsement.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants established sufficient cause for the court to extend time to file a memorandum of appeal under Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause Under Rule 5 Court of Appeal Rules
The court's power to extend time under Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules is discretionary and may only be exercised where the applicant satisfies the court that there is sufficient cause for the extension.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Necessity of a Validly Lodged and Served Notice of Appeal
An appeal cannot be competently lodged in the absence of a notice of appeal lodged under Rule 76 and served on persons directly affected under Rule 78; accordingly the court cannot extend time to file a memorandum of appeal where no notice of appeal is shown to have been lodged.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Exclusion of Time Under Rule 83(3) — Mandatory Proof of Service
An appellant may not rely on the exclusion of time under Rule 83(2) unless the application for a copy of proceedings was in writing, a copy was served on the respondent, and proof of that service is retained; service and proof of service are mandatory, and an unendorsed letter cannot prove service.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Horizon Coaches Ltd v Francis Mutabazi and Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2001)
  • National Housing & Construction Co. Ltd v Salome T.B Kyomukama (Civil Application No. 133 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyirabarore Vannis & Anor Vs Nyirakubanza Sarafina & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 0037 of 2018) [2018] UGCA 73 (3 September 2018)
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.