Wakilii

Prof. Ddumba Ssentamu and Others v Prof. Elisam Magara (Miscellaneous Application No. 110 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 234 · 2018 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file application for leave to appeal and for leave to appeal against ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 497 of 2015
Decision
Applicants granted extension of time and leave to appeal against the contempt ruling

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 High Court granted the applicants extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal and granted leave to appeal. The court found that the ruling in the underlying application had been delivered in an incomplete form on 28 September 2017 and the final version was handed over on 5 February 2018, creating confusion. The delay of 9 days was not inordinate in these circumstances. The applicants' proposed grounds of appeal merited serious judicial consideration, particularly challenges to awards totalling UGX 617,545,020 made in a contempt ruling, some of which were allegedly not sought and may have disposed of the main judicial review cause.

Outcome

Applicants granted extension of time and leave to appeal against the contempt ruling

Facts

The applicants sought extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal, against a ruling delivered in Miscellaneous Application No. 497 of 2015 (a contempt application). The underlying ruling found the applicants in contempt of a court order concerning the respondent's suspension from Makerere University and awarded damages totalling UGX 617,545,020. The court delivered part of its ruling on 28 September 2017 without pronouncing on the orders sought. On 19 December 2017, the trial judge informed counsel that the complete ruling would be delivered on 5 February 2018, but no oral delivery occurred; instead, counsel collected the complete written ruling dated 28 September 2017 from the clerk. The respondent extracted the order on 14 February 2018 and demanded payment on 22 February 2018. The applicants filed the present application on 28 February 2018, which the respondent argued was time-barred and an abuse of process.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a delay in commencing the application for extension of time.
  2. Whether there are sufficient grounds to grant leave to appeal.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to file application for leave to appeal allowed.
  • Extension of time granted by way of validation of the joint application.
  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Delay — Circumstances Causing Confusion
Where a court delivers an incomplete ruling and the final version is handed over to parties without formal oral delivery, creating confusion as to the effective date of delivery, a delay of 9 days in filing an application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal is not inordinate delay, particularly where the peculiar circumstances of each case determine whether a period constitutes inordinate delay.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Test for Granting Leave
Leave to appeal will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, or where the grant of leave is necessary to protect the applicant's right of appeal and for attaining the ends of justice. The court is not required to analyse whether the grounds of appeal will succeed, but merely whether there is a real prospect of success, meaning realistic rather than fanciful.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Appeal — Filing Before Leave Obtained
Failure to obtain leave before lodging a Notice of Appeal where an appeal lies only with leave is not fatal to the Notice of Appeal. Leave may be obtained before or after lodging the Notice of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Multiplicity of Suits
Abuse of court process arises when a party improperly uses judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of the opponent and the efficient administration of justice, typically through instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue and the same set of facts. An application for leave to appeal by a party genuinely aggrieved by a decision does not constitute abuse of process.
Administrative Law — Contempt of Court — Right of Appeal — Unpurged Contempt
A party found in contempt of court retains the constitutional right to appeal that finding. An appeal or application to set aside a contempt order is an exception to the general rule that a contemnor must first purge the contempt before a hearing. The right of appeal cannot be denied solely because a court has condemned the party in contempt proceedings.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3

Cases cited (9)

  • Kampala Pharmaceutical Industries 1996 Ltd v Ushillano Gallibhai (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 39 of 1997)
  • Housing Finance Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (HCMA No. 158 of 2010)
  • Conform Uganda Ltd v Megha Industries (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 1084 of 2014)
  • Benkay Nigeria Limited vs Cadbury Nigeria Limited No. 29 of 2006 (Supreme Court of Nigeria)
  • Seraki vs Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (pt 264) 156 at 188
  • Horizon Coaches Ltd v Edward Rurangaranga (SCCA No. 18 of 2009)
  • Sango Bay Estate vs Dresdner Bank & Attorney General
  • Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Prof. Ddumba Ssentamu and Others v Prof. Elisam Magara (Miscellaneous Application No. 110 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 234 (9 July 2018)
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.