Wakilii

Sekajja v Saad (civil Application No. 27 92)

Supreme Court · [1992] UGSC 35 · 1992 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for leave to extend the time within which to file an appeal to the Supreme Court against a High Court decision
Decision
Extension of time granted; applicant to file the record of appeal within seven days.

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 Deputy Chief Justice held that the discretion to extend time under Rule 4 may be exercised only for sufficient reason relating to the inability or failure to take the required step in time, and there must be material before the court to support its exercise. Where the record of appeal was filed within time but rejected solely because the index page had been omitted, an error corrected at once so that the appeal was only one day late, the applicant had shown sufficient reason. A party should not be penalised for his advocate's simple, promptly remedied error, and such minimal delay may be condoned. The application for extension of time was allowed.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; applicant to file the record of appeal within seven days.

Facts

The respondent, Sauda Saad, was the successful party in a dispute in the High Court. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the applicant instructed an advocate, Mr. Kityo, to appeal to the Supreme Court. Mr. Kityo obtained the record of proceedings on 23 April 1992, giving him 60 days, 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 23 June 1992 on the ground that it was defective because it lacked an index page. The advocate corrected the omission the same day, but the Registrar then declined to accept the appeal because it was by then late by one day. The applicant changed advocates, instructing Mr. Dominic Kasirye, who brought this application for extension of time on 21 July 1992.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason under Rule 4 to justify an extension of the time within which to file the appeal.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The applicant shall file the record of appeal within seven days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs of this application to the respondent in any event.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Sufficient reason under Rule 4
The discretion to extend the time to appeal under Rule 4 may be exercised only for sufficient reason that relates to the inability or failure to take the particular step in time, and there must be material before the court on which to exercise it, since an unqualified right to extend time would defeat the purpose of the rule.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Minor defect and advocate's error
Where an appeal filed within time is rendered incompetent only by a minor defect that is corrected at once, resulting in minimal delay, the delay may be condoned and the party should not be penalised for a simple, promptly remedied error of his advocate that occasioned no real prejudice.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.4

Cases cited (3)

  • [1970] EA 481 at 483
  • Ratnam v Cumarasamy & Another [1964] 3 All ER 933
  • Sese Birasi & Another v Kareba & Another (Civil Application No. 6 of 1978)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sekajja v Saad (civil Application No. 27 92) [1992] UGSC 35 (21 September 1992)
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.