Roy Busuulwa Nsereko and Another v Imelda N. Nakedde (Civil Application No. 5 of 2000)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court allowed an application for extension of time to file an appeal under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996. The applicants instructed counsel to appeal as soon as they learned of the judgment, but counsel mistakenly filed a notice of appeal out of time and delayed in bringing the application. The court held that errors and lapses of counsel, over whom a vigilant litigant has no control, should not deter the litigant from pursuing an appeal. A client is entitled to rely on counsel to carry out instructions, and an intending appellant—especially one residing outside the country—cannot be expected to monitor every step counsel takes. The delay was the fault of counsel, not the applicants.

Outcome

Application for extension of time granted; applicants to file appeal within 21 days

Facts

The respondent sued the two applicants for recovery of land in High Court Civil Suit No. 1074 of 1995. The first applicant, who lives in London, was represented at trial by an advocate who died in 1997 or 1998; the second applicant was unrepresented. Judgment was to be delivered on notice but notice was served on an advocate in the former counsel's chambers rather than on the applicants. Judgment was delivered on 25 August 1999 in the absence of both applicants. The applicants learned of the judgment on 14 September 1999 and immediately instructed present counsel, who filed a notice of appeal in the High Court that same day. The notice of appeal was filed five days out of time. Counsel later realised this and filed the present application to appeal out of time, brought approximately 150 days after the applicants learned of the judgment.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants had shown sufficient reason under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996 to justify an extension of time within which to file an appeal.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• The applicants are to take the necessary steps to file their appeal within 21 days from the date of this ruling.
• Costs of this application to abide the result of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Court of Appeal Rules 1996 rule 4

Cases cited (6)

• Clouds 10 Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1992)
• Regina Kabatabazi v Paul Muwanga (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
• Mugo v Wanjiru [1970] EA 481
• Bhatt v Tejwant Singh [1962] EA 497
• Haji Mudin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 21 of 1991)
• Mary Kyamulabi v Ahamad Zirondum 1981 HCB

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Muddumba v Kuluse (Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2000)

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