Wakilii

Prof. G.S.Z. Ssenyonga and Another v Uganda (Misc. Application No. 10 of 1999)

Court of Appeal · [1999] UGCA 89 · 1999 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to apply for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court, arising from a criminal appeal.
Decision
Extension of time granted; applicants to file application for a certificate within 7 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

The applicants sought an extension of time to apply for a certificate of the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Supreme Court, having failed to apply within time. The court held that the failure of the applicants' advocates, who had been instructed to prosecute the appeal but did not apply for the required certificate, constituted sufficient reason for the delay under rule 4 of the Rules of the Court. The fault of the advocate could not be visited on the client. The application was accordingly allowed, with the applicants directed to file their application for a certificate within seven days of the ruling.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; applicants to file application for a certificate within 7 days.

Facts

The applicants had appealed a judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1999. The judgment was read by the Registrar rather than a full court, so no informal application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court could be made at the time of delivery. The applicants' advocates, M/S Kanyunyuzi & Co. Advocates, filed Notices of Appeal but failed to apply for the required certificate within the prescribed time, and that time had expired. A subsequent firm, instructed to prosecute the appeal in the Supreme Court, discovered on checking the court registry that no certificate had been applied for or issued. The applicants applied for an extension of time, supported by affidavits of Augustus Ssewankambo and the second applicant Namuddu Christine. There was no affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants showed sufficient reason for the delay in applying for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court so as to warrant an extension of time.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicants to file their application for a certificate within 7 days from the date of the Ruling.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason — Fault of Advocate
An extension of time under rule 4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal will be granted where sufficient reason relating to the failure to act within time is shown; the fault of an advocate causing delay constitutes sufficient reason and cannot be visited on the client.
Affidavit Evidence — Necessity of Relating Submissions to Affidavit Evidence
Affidavits must contain evidence to support the grounds of an application, and counsel's submissions must be related to that affidavit evidence; mere rehearsal of grounds without reference to supporting affidavit evidence is improper.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.4
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.40(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Prof. G.S.Z. Ssenyonga and Another v Uganda (Misc. Application No. 10 of 1999) [1999] UGCA 89 (28 July 1999)
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.