Wakilii

Oywelo v Onying (Miscellaneous Application No. 57 of 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHC 154 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enlargement of time to file an appeal after memorandum of appeal was struck out for being erroneously entitled 'tentative memorandum of appeal'
Decision
Applicant granted leave to file appeal within fourteen days

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 granted the application for enlargement of time to file an appeal. Held that where an applicant instructed counsel in time and counsel filed an appeal but erroneously entitled it 'tentative memorandum of appeal' resulting in it being struck out, this amounts to good cause. Mistakes, faults, lapses or dilatory conduct of counsel should not be visited on the litigant. Where the subject matter is land, enlargement of time should ordinarily be granted unless there is unexplained inordinate delay, no reasonable explanation, prejudice to the respondent, or the intended appeal is not arguable.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to file appeal within fourteen days

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant in a land dispute and obtained judgment in her favour. The applicant instructed counsel who filed an appeal but erroneously entitled it 'tentative memorandum of appeal', which was struck out on 12 April 2019. On the same day the appeal was struck out, the applicant filed this application for enlargement of time to file the appeal. The applicant argued that the typing error by counsel should not be visited upon the client, the application was filed without undue delay, and the dispute concerns seven acres of land from which the applicant derives his sustenance. The respondent did not file an affidavit in reply or submissions in response.

Issues

  1. Whether good cause has been shown to warrant enlargement of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. Whether mistakes by counsel in entitling a memorandum of appeal as 'tentative' constitute sufficient reason for extension of time.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant granted leave to file the appeal within fourteen days of delivery of this ruling.
  • Costs of the application to abide the results of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Enlargement of Time — Test for Grant
An application for enlargement of time should not be granted as a matter of course. Grant of extension of time is discretionary and depends on proof of 'good cause' showing that the justice of the matter warrants such an extension.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Enlargement of Time — What Constitutes 'Sufficient Reason'
What constitutes 'sufficient reason' will naturally depend on the circumstances of each case. Although such circumstances ordinarily relate to the inability or failure to take the particular step within the prescribed time, reasons may not necessarily be restricted to explaining the delay. An applicant who has been indolent, has not furnished grounds to show that the intended appeal is meritous may yet succeed because of the nature of the subject matter of the dispute, absence of significant prejudice to the respondent, and the court's constitutional obligation to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Enlargement of Time — Guiding Considerations
In determining whether to grant enlargement of time, courts must consider: (a) whether sufficient reason related to the inability or failure to take a particular step has been shown; (b) that the administration of justice normally requires that cases be decided on the merits and that errors and lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from pursuit of rights; (c) that mistakes of counsel may amount to sufficient reason if they amount to an error of judgment but not inordinate delay or negligence; (d) that unless the applicant was guilty of dilatory conduct in instructing counsel, errors or omissions on the part of counsel should not be visited on the litigant; and (e) that where an applicant instructed counsel in time, rights should not be blocked on grounds of counsel's negligence or omission.
Land & Property — Appeals — Enlargement of Time — Land Disputes
An order for enlargement of time to file an appeal where the subject matter of the dispute is land should ordinarily be granted unless the applicant is guilty of unexplained and inordinate delay in seeking the indulgence of the court, has not presented a reasonable explanation of failure to file the appeal within the time prescribed by law, the extension will be prejudicial to the respondent, or the court is otherwise satisfied that the intended appeal is not an arguable one.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Enlargement of Time — Balancing Access to Justice and Finality
In an application for enlargement of time, the court must balance considerations of access to justice on the one hand and the desire to have finality to litigation on the other.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (15)

  • Mugo v Wanjiri [1970] EA 481
  • Pinnacle Projects Limited v Business In Motion Consultants Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)
  • Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdmer Bank [1971] EA 17
  • G M Combined (U) Limited v A K Detergents (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Rossette Kizito v Administrator General (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
  • Shanti v Hindocha [1973] EA 207
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
  • Tiberio Okeny v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)
  • Phillip Keipto Chemwolo v Augustine Kubende [1986] KLR 495
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Ggoloba Godfrey v Harriet Kizito (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2006)
  • Zam Nalumansi v Sulaiman Bale (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 1999)
  • Tight Security Ltd v Chartis Uganda Insurance Company Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2014)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Oywelo v Onying (Miscellaneous Application No. 57 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 154 (23 July 2020)
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.