Wakilii

Richard Dominic Nkubiito v Matovu Ashraf Business Solutions (Miscellaneous Application No. 2315 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 317 · 2025 Application Dismissed 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 judgment
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 dismissed the application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, finding that the applicant's laxity in not taking necessary steps to file the appeal in time amounted to dilatory conduct. The court further held that the intended appeal had no chance of success, as the grounds of appeal did not specify the legal or factual issues wrongly decided and did not challenge the trial magistrate's findings with sufficient particularity.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant was sued by the respondent at Makindye Chief Magistrates' Court in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2023 for recovery of UGX 26,047,670 arising from a loan agreement dated 26 November 2022. Judgment was delivered against the applicant on 6 August 2024. The applicant requested a typed record of proceedings on 20 August 2024, which was certified on 9 September 2024. The applicant claimed he was arrested and detained in civil prison on 10 September 2024 in a different matter at Mengo Chief Magistrates' Court, which prevented him from filing his appeal within the statutory 30-day period. The applicant filed this application for extension of time on 30 October 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the time within which to file the memorandum of appeal against the judgment in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2023 should be extended.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of this application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Dilatory Conduct
An intending appellant who requests certified proceedings 14 days after judgment delivery but fails to take necessary steps to file an appeal upon receiving those proceedings, and who claims arrest without providing corroborative evidence, is guilty of dilatory conduct and has not demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Definition
Sufficient cause means that a party has not acted in a negligent manner or there was no want of bona fides on its part, and the party cannot be alleged to have been not acting diligently or remaining inactive. The facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court to exercise discretion judiciously.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Likelihood of Success — Grounds of Appeal
Where an applicant for extension of time has been culpable of inordinate delay, has not demonstrated that the intended appeal is meritorious and likely to succeed, and has not shown circumstances that prevented timely action, the application shall not be granted. Grounds of appeal that do not specifically point to alleged errors or specify the legal or factual issues wrongly decided do not demonstrate likelihood of success.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Specificity Required
A ground of appeal must challenge a holding or ratio decidendi and must specify the points that were wrongly decided. Grounds that do not specifically point to alleged errors made by the trial court and do not specify the legal or factual issues wrongly decided are defective.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (17)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 55 of 1995)
  • Mark Sekibule v Sabastiano Sebagala and Walugembe James (Miscellaneous Application No. 64 of 2021)
  • Tushabe Cris v Co-operative Bank Limited (Civil Application No. 64 of 2021)
  • Nyirabarore Vannis and Another v Nyirakubanza Sarafina and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 37 of 2018)
  • Kobusingye v Zimbiha (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 245 of 2019)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Good African Foundation Ltd and Another v Agricultural Business Initiative Trust (Miscellaneous Application No. 1592 of 2021)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General and Kasirye, Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 1997)
  • Kiiza Sanyu v Emojong John (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 130 of 2024)
  • Bankone Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
  • Dr. Wasswa Joseph Matovu v Makerere University and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 11 of 2021)
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 67 of 2003)
  • Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owoto (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 14 of 2001)
  • Gideon Mose Onchwati Vs Kenya Oil Co. Ltd and Another [2017] eKLR 30
  • Parimal Vs Veena Alias Bhati, [2011] 3 SCC 545
  • Utex Industries Limited v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 31 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Richard Dominic Nkubiito v Matovu Ashraf Business Solutions (Miscellaneous Application No. 2315 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 317 (8 September 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.