Wakilii

Oluka Matiya Sulaiman v. Changa Moses (HCT-04-CV-MA-204-2009) (HCT-04-CV-MA-204-2009)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 159 · 2010 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file memorandum of appeal from a Chief Magistrate's Court decision
Decision
Application struck out for being incompetent and misconceived

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

Held that an application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal must be brought under s.79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and O.52 r.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not under s.98 CPA and O.51 r.6 CPR. Section 98 CPA applies only where no express procedure exists. Order 51 r.6 CPR applies only to time limits fixed by the Rules or court orders, not to statutory time limits. Application struck out as incompetent and misconceived.

Outcome

Application struck out for being incompetent and misconceived

Facts

The applicant filed a defamation suit in Pallisa Chief Magistrate's Court which was struck out under O.7 r.11(a) and (e) CPR for disclosing no cause of action. He sought to appeal but obtained the record of proceedings and judgment after the statutory appeal period had expired. He applied to the High Court for extension of time to file his memorandum of appeal under s.98 CPA, O.51 r.6 and O.52 rr.1, 2 and 3 CPR. The respondent raised preliminary objections that the application was brought under the wrong provisions and should have been brought under s.79(1) CPA instead.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for extension of time was properly brought under the correct legal provisions.
  2. Whether s.98 of the Civil Procedure Act can be invoked when express statutory remedies exist.
  3. Whether O.51 r.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to time limits fixed by statute or only to time limits fixed by the Rules or court orders.

Orders

  • Application struck out with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Section 98 CPA — When Applicable
Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act applies only where the law does not expressly provide a procedure, and a party cannot ordinarily invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court under s.98 if another express remedy is available.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Proper Provisions for Appeals Out of Time
An application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal must be brought under s.79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which empowers the appellate court to admit an appeal out of time for good cause, read together with O.52 r.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Order 51 r.6 CPR — Scope of Application
Order 51 r.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies only to time limits fixed by the Civil Procedure Rules or by orders of court, and does not apply to time limits fixed by statute such as those prescribed in s.79 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Residual Powers Despite Specific Remedies
The existence of a specific procedure provision or remedy cannot operate to restrict or exclude the court's inherent jurisdiction under s.98 of the Civil Procedure Act, which gives residual powers to the court to prevent or correct any injustice, but such jurisdiction should not be invoked where express statutory remedies exist and are applicable.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Alcon International Ltd v Kasirye B. Byaruhanga Co. Advocates (1996) HCB 61
  • Ahamed Hassan Mulji v Shirimbal Jadavj [1963] EA 217
  • Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda v Ben Kavuya & Barclays Bank (2006) 1 HCB 134

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Oluka Matiya Sulaiman Vs. Changa Moses (HCT-04-CV-MA-204-2009) (HCT-04-CV-MA-204-2009) [2010] UGHC 159 (28 April 2010)
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.