Wakilii

Omongole Benuwa v Tino Margrate [2026] UGHC 765

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application by notice of motion for leave to appeal out of time against a High Court appellate judgment
Decision
Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed for want of jurisdiction

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 applicant sought leave to appeal out of time against a High Court appellate judgment, relying on Order 51 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and the court's inherent jurisdiction. The court held that Order 51 Rule 6 applies only to time limits fixed by the Rules or by court order, not the thirty-day period prescribed by statute under section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act. Because section 79(1)(b) and Rule 5 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions expressly vest the power to admit an appeal out of time in the appellate court, no lacuna existed to justify resort to inherent jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Facts

The applicant had been a party to Pallisa Civil Suit No. 023 of 2014 and to Civil Appeal No. 033 of 2018 in the High Court at Mbale. On 25 March 2025 the High Court dismissed that appeal and affirmed the trial Magistrate's decision. The applicant was not present when judgment was delivered and stated that he learnt of it only on 10 July 2025, when the respondent's advocate sent him a vacation notice with copies of the decree and judgment. The thirty-day period for appealing had expired on 24 April 2025. He engaged new counsel and applied for leave to appeal out of time, asserting that the delay was beyond his control, that his previous advocates had failed to communicate the judgment, that the intended appeal raised arguable grounds concerning the lawfulness of a sale transaction found by the Magistrate, and that the respondent would suffer no prejudice. The respondent was served on 6 October 2025 at Pallisa but neither entered appearance nor filed an affidavit in reply, and the matter proceeded ex parte on 5 November 2025 with written submissions filed by 12 November 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal out of time against its own appellate judgment where the appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether Order 51 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules can be invoked to enlarge a period for appealing that is fixed by statute.
  3. Whether the court's inherent jurisdiction under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions could be invoked to extend the time for appealing.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time to Appeal — Jurisdiction of the Appellate Court
Jurisdiction to admit an appeal out of time is vested in the appellate court to which the appeal lies; the High Court cannot enlarge the time for appealing against its own decision where the appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Order 51 Rule 6 CPR — Time Limits Fixed by Statute Distinguished from Time Limits Fixed by Rules
Order 51 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers a court to enlarge only periods fixed by the Rules or by order of court, and cannot be used to extend the thirty-day period for appealing prescribed by section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Limits Where Express Statutory Remedy Exists
Inherent jurisdiction is a residual reserve of power to be exercised sparingly and only where there is a lacuna in statute or rules; it cannot be invoked contrary to legislation, nor where an express statutory provision already confers the remedy sought.
Statutory Interpretation — Jurisdiction — Consequence of Absence of Jurisdiction
Where a court lacks jurisdiction it cannot proceed at all in the cause, and its only remaining function is to declare that fact and dismiss the matter.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (4)

  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 1 EA 132
  • Re Nakibule Obanno Eli [1973] HCB 258
  • Agoro Trading Store (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1996)
  • Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 3024 at 3037B

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Omongole Benuwa v Tino Margrate [2026] UGHC 765 (23 June 2026)
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.