Wakilii

Ramzan Investments Ltd v Angel Nsubuga (Miscellaneous Application No. 0319 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 211 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file memorandum of appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court decision
Decision
Applicant granted extension of time to file memorandum of appeal

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 application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal. The court held that where a client's former lawyers filed a notice of appeal but negligently failed to file the memorandum of appeal or request certified proceedings, this constitutes sufficient cause under section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. It would be unfair to visit the lawyers' mistakes on the client who had no control over how instructions were carried out.

Outcome

Applicant granted extension of time to file memorandum of appeal

Facts

Ramzan Investments Ltd was dissatisfied with a judgment delivered by the Chief Magistrate's Court on 10 February 2025 in Civil Suit No. 0453 of 2020. The applicant's former lawyers filed a notice of appeal but failed to file a memorandum of appeal within the prescribed 30-day period and did not request certified proceedings from the lower court. New lawyers took over instructions on 23 April 2025 and filed a letter requesting certified proceedings. The applicant filed a memorandum of appeal on 28 April 2025, 73 days after judgment delivery, and brought this application seeking extension of time or validation of the filed memorandum.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing a memorandum of appeal beyond the prescribed 30-day period.
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the memorandum of appeal.
  3. Whether the negligence of the applicant's former lawyers constitutes good cause for extending time.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant granted leave to file memorandum of appeal outside the prescribed time limit.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Inherent Powers of Court — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act
Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act grants the court inherent powers to make orders necessary for the ends of justice, but where a specific statutory provision governs the situation, the invocation of inherent powers is untenable.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause
Under section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, an appeal must be filed within 30 days of the decree or order, but the appellate court may for good cause admit an appeal after the limitation period has elapsed. The court has discretion under section 96 and Order 51 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules to extend time even after expiration of the prescribed period.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Factors for Exercise of Discretion
In exercising discretion to extend time, the court considers the length of delay, the reason for delay, whether there is an arguable case on appeal, and the degree of prejudice to the other party if time is extended. The discretion must be exercised judicially and good cause must be shown for the entire period of delay.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Commencement — Memorandum of Appeal
An appeal to the High Court is commenced by a memorandum of appeal and not by a notice of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Lawyer Negligence — Sufficient Cause
Where a client's former lawyers negligently failed to file a memorandum of appeal or request certified proceedings despite filing a notice of appeal, this constitutes sufficient cause for extending time, as it would be unfair to visit the lawyers' mistakes on the client who had no control over how instructions were carried out.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529
  • Alcon International v Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co Advocates [1995] III KALR 91
  • R v Bloomsbury and Marylebone County Court, ex parte Villerwest Ltd [1976] 1 All ER 897
  • Kirya v Migereko and Another (Election Reference Appeal No. 39 of 2012)
  • African Airlines International Ltd v Eastern & Southern African Trade & Development Bank [2003] 1 EA
  • Aristella Kabwinukya v John Kasigwa [1978] HCB 251
  • Pinnacle Projects Ltd v Business in Motion Consultants Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ramzan Investments Ltd v Angel Nsubuga (Miscellaneous Application No. 0319 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 211 (28 November 2025)
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.