Opec Prime Properties Limited v Lukyamuzi Investment Limited (Miscellaneous Application 815 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application No. 2390 of 2025)
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 dismissed the application for leave to file out of time and for leave to appeal. The applicant filed the application 21 days outside the statutory 14-day period but failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The court held that extension of time is discretionary and requires proof of good cause, which the applicant did not establish. Having declined the extension, the application for leave to appeal also failed.
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent
Facts
The Applicant had instituted Miscellaneous Application No. 2390 of 2023 seeking to set aside a default judgment arising out of Civil Suit No. 554 of 2023 and for leave to defend the suit. On 28 March 2024, the trial judge delivered a ruling dismissing the application on the ground that it disclosed no triable issues. The Applicant sought to appeal against that ruling. Under the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, an application for leave to appeal must be filed within 14 days of the decision. The Applicant filed the present application on 2 May 2024, 21 days outside the statutory period. The Applicant sought leave to file out of time and leave to appeal, but provided no explanation for the delay beyond asserting there was no dilatory conduct.
Issues
- Whether the Application raises grounds for enlargement of time within which to file this application.
- Whether the Application raises grounds for the grant of leave to appeal against the Ruling of the court in Miscellaneous Application No. 2390 of 2023.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.76
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 4
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 2
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 40(1)
Cases cited (4)
- Shah v Attorney General (1971) EA 50
- Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
- Sseruwuge Charles v Kinoni Traders' Cooperative Savings Credit Society (Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2020)
- Deborah Ntanda v Dr. D. B. Kyegombe (Deceased) & Mrs. B. V. Kyeyune (Miscellaneous Application No. 1493 of 2021)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.