Sadrudin Dhamji Sayani v Mpresse Nsubuga (Civil Application 10 of 1995)

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 applicant sought an extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal roughly two months out of time. The court held that he had not shown sufficient reason: a notice of appeal is a simple document not requiring perusal of the judgment or proceedings, and the court vacation and delay in obtaining a typed judgment did not excuse the delay. An advocate's blunder may or may not amount to sufficient reason and each case turns on its own facts; here the delay reflected a deliberate risk not to file. Likelihood of success is not, by itself, a sufficient reason and falls to be considered only after sufficient reason for the delay is established. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The trial judge, Byamugisha J., dismissed the applicant's High Court civil suit by a judgment delivered on 31 December 1994. The applicant did not lodge a notice of appeal within the 14 days prescribed by the Rules. His advocate deposed that he had requested a typed copy of the judgment to understand its legal implications, had not received it, and on reviewing the handwritten copy discovered points of law warranting an appeal — a discovery made after the 14-day period had expired. The applicant ultimately filed this application for extension of time only on 3 March 1995. The underlying dispute concerned interpretation of the expropriation laws relating to leases and re-entry on land formerly expropriated, the applicant having received a letter of repossession of expropriated property which the trial judge held had no legal effect.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient reason under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court to warrant an extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal out of time.
2. Whether a blunder by an advocate constitutes sufficient reason to extend the time for taking a step in litigation.
3. Whether the likelihood of success of the proposed appeal is, by itself, a sufficient reason to grant an extension of time.

Orders

• Application for extension of time dismissed.
• Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(1)(d)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.48 r.1
• Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.5(1)
• Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal) Regulations 1983 reg.10(3)

Cases cited (5)

• Hussein Vs. G.I Kakooza & 2 others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. ... ) (unreported)
• Attorney General v M.M. Mulji Huda & 4 others (Civil Application No. 9 of 1988)
• D. Almeida v Dr. C. Ruiz Almeida (Civil Application No. 15 of 1990)
• Haji Nurdin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
• Cloud 10 Ltd Vs. Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd (unreported)

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.

• Omar v Abdalla (civil Application No. 54 of 2000)

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