Wakilii

Oryema v Okole (Miscellaneous Application 27 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 448 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time against dismissal of civil suit
Decision
Application for leave to appeal out of time granted; applicant to file memorandum of appeal within 14 days

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 affidavit in reply should be filed within reasonable time to allow the opposite party a fair opportunity to respond, and need not comply with the 15-day written statement of defence timeline. Where delay in filing an appeal is caused by counsel's failure to inform the client of the dismissal of their suit, this constitutes good cause under s.79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the mistakes of counsel should not be visited on the litigant. Application for leave to appeal out of time granted.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal out of time granted; applicant to file memorandum of appeal within 14 days

Facts

The Applicant filed Civil Suit No. 51 of 2018 before Gulu Chief Magistrate's Court through his lawyers. On 19 June 2019 when the case came up for cross-examination, the trial Magistrate had been transferred and no clear hearing date was given. The Applicant travelled to South Sudan for business and relied on his lawyers to update him on the case. Despite telephone calls, he did not receive any update. On 7 November 2019, the trial court dismissed the suit under Order 17 rule 4 for failure to produce witnesses. The Applicant only learned of the dismissal in 2021 when he returned to Uganda after COVID-19 travel restrictions eased. He first filed Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021 to set aside the dismissal, which he later withdrew. He then filed this application for leave to appeal out of time, the 30-day appeal period having elapsed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's affidavit in reply was filed out of time and should be struck out.
  2. Whether the Applicant demonstrated good cause to justify extension of time to file an appeal out of time.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicant to file the Memorandum of Appeal within 14 days.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Timeline for Filing — Distinction from Pleadings
An affidavit in reply, being evidence rather than a pleading in stricto sensu, is not subject to the 15-day timeline applicable to written statements of defence but should be filed within a reasonable time before the hearing date to allow the adverse party a fair opportunity to respond.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Good Cause under s.79(1) Civil Procedure Act
Under s.79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court has discretion to admit an appeal after the 30-day limitation period where the applicant demonstrates good cause, and such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to whether the delay is inexcusably long, whether injustice will be caused to the other party, and whether there is reasonable justification for the delay.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Dilatory Conduct of Counsel
Where delay in filing an appeal is caused by the mistakes, faults, lapses or dilatory conduct of counsel, such delay should not be visited upon the litigant and constitutes good cause for granting an extension of time to file an appeal, as the administration of justice requires that the substance of disputes be heard and decided on merit.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (HCMC No. 0007 of 2016)
  • Springwood Capital Partners Limited v Twed Consulting Company Limited (High Court Misc. Application No. 746 of 2014)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (S.C. Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Oryema v Okole (Miscellaneous Application 27 of 2021) 2024 UGHC 448 (13 June 2024)
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.