Wakilii

Prime Holdings Ltd and Others v Cubes Logistics (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 181 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 312 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against a review decision dismissing an application to set aside security for due performance of decree
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed for being filed out of time without prior application for extension of time

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 leave to appeal a review decision must be filed within fourteen days under rule 40(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions. Where an application is filed two years out of time without a prior application for extension of time, and the applicants demonstrate lack of diligence in following up with counsel, the application fails. The court cannot validate a notice of appeal where leave to appeal has not first been obtained.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed for being filed out of time without prior application for extension of time

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment against Deco Tiles (U) Ltd for USD 79,020 and costs. The respondent successfully applied ex parte to lift the corporate veil and hold the directors (the present applicants) liable for the judgment debt. The applicants obtained a stay of execution upon paying USD 20,000 security and were granted leave to be heard on the veil-lifting application upon paying USD 30,000 as security for costs. The applicants applied for review of the security order. The court dismissed the review but found a mistake on the record and converted the USD 30,000 from security for costs to security for due performance of the decree. The applicants sought leave to appeal this decision on 5 February 2025, approximately two years after the ruling of 23 February 2023. The applicants claimed they instructed their former lawyers to appeal immediately but the lawyers failed to file, and they only discovered this omission in mid-2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for a grant of leave to appeal.
  2. Whether the application for leave to appeal filed approximately two years after the decision was filed within the prescribed time or should be validated.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Time Limits
An application for leave to appeal a decision dismissing an application for review must be filed within fourteen days of the decision under rule 40(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Requirement to Obtain Leave Before Filing Notice of Appeal
Where there is no automatic right of appeal, an applicant must first obtain leave to appeal before filing a notice of appeal. A court cannot validate a notice of appeal filed out of time where leave to appeal has not first been obtained.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Requirement for Formal Application
Where an application for leave to appeal is filed out of time, there must be a separate application seeking extension of time within which to file the application for leave. The court cannot grant an extension in the absence of such an application.
Civil Procedure — Counsel Negligence — Client Responsibility for Delay
Where an applicant instructs counsel to file an appeal but fails to follow up diligently for nearly two years, the applicant cannot shift the entire blame for delay to former counsel. A lack of diligence on the part of the client in monitoring the progress of the matter is fatal to an application filed out of time.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Shah v Attorney General [1971] EA 50
  • Robinnah Matanda and Others v P.R. Patel and Another (Civil Appeal No. 258 of 2020)
  • Allmus Properties (U) Ltd and 2 Others v CTM (U) Ltd and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 379 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Prime Holdings Ltd and Others v Cubes Logistics (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 181 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 312 (7 May 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.