Sekajja v Falida Saad (Civil Application No. 27 92)
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
On an application under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court for extension of time to appeal, the court held that the discretion to extend time is exercised only for sufficient reason relating to the inability or failure to take the required step in time. Where the appellant's advocate had filed the record of appeal in time but it was rendered incompetent solely by omission of the index page, an error corrected at once and resulting in only one day's delay, the applicant should not be penalised for his advocate's simple mistake. The court found sufficient reason shown, allowed the application, and ordered the record of appeal to be filed within seven days.
Outcome
Application for extension of time allowed; applicant ordered to file the record of appeal within seven days
Facts
The respondent had succeeded against the applicant in a land dispute in the High Court, in a judgment delivered on 28 February 1992. Dissatisfied, the applicant instructed an advocate, Mr Kityo, to appeal to the Supreme Court. The advocate obtained the record of proceedings on 23 April 1992 and thus had until 22 June 1992 to file the appeal. He lodged the record of appeal on Friday 19 June 1992, but the Registrar rejected it on Tuesday 23 June 1992 on the ground that it was defective for omitting the index page. The advocate rectified the error the same day, but the Registrar declined to accept the appeal as it was then late by one day. The applicant subsequently changed advocates and, through Mr Kasirye, brought this application for extension of time on 21 July 1992.
Issues
- Whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court to justify an extension of time within which to file an appeal.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- The applicant shall file the record of appeal within seven days from today.
- Costs of this application to the respondent in any event.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.5
Cases cited (4)
- Mugo v Wanjiro [1970] EA 481
- Kangeoteto v Uganda Criminal Application No. 1 of 1978, Court of Appeal for Uganda (unreported)
- Ratnam v Cumarasamy & Another (1964) 3 All ER (Privy Council)
- Sezi Busasi & Another v Karebe & Another, Civil Application No. 5 of 1978, Court of Appeal for Uganda (unreported)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.