Wakilii

Sekibule v Sabasitiano and Another (Miscellaneous Application 64 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 227 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enlargement of time to file memorandum of appeal and validation of memorandum already filed, arising from Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2021
Decision
Application granted; applicant given leave to file appeal out of time and memorandum of appeal validated

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 held that negligence or omission by counsel who failed to file an appeal within the prescribed 30-day period should not be visited upon the applicant where the applicant instructed counsel in time and the same lawyers represented him at trial. The court found the applicant showed plausible explanation for the delay and granted leave to file the appeal out of time, validating the memorandum already filed.

Outcome

Application granted; applicant given leave to file appeal out of time and memorandum of appeal validated

Facts

The applicant instructed M/s Baruga Associated Advocates to file an appeal after the Chief Magistrate's Court dismissed his suit on 6 April 2021. The applicant's former lawyers informed him they would commence the appeal process upon receipt of the judgment but failed to do so despite the applicant's repeated attempts to follow up by telephone and visits to their chambers. The applicant discovered the appeal had not been filed when he checked with the court registry. He then engaged new lawyers, M/s T. Odeke & Co. Advocates, who filed the application and memorandum of appeal on 14 July 2021, approximately one month and twenty days after the 30-day statutory period expired. The respondents opposed the application, arguing the applicant failed to prove he instructed his former lawyers and that the delay was wilful.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause shown by the Applicant to warrant enlargement of time to file a memorandum of appeal.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant granted leave to file appeal out of time.
  • Memorandum of appeal already filed on court record validated.
  • Applicant directed to serve the validated memorandum of appeal on the Respondents' counsel within 7 days from the date of this ruling and file an affidavit of service to that effect.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Mistake of Counsel — Whether Negligence of Counsel Should Be Visited on Client
Where an applicant instructed a lawyer in time to file an appeal, the applicant's rights should not be blocked on the grounds of the lawyer's negligence or omission to comply with the requirements of the law. A vigilant applicant should not be penalized for the fault of counsel on whose actions the applicant has no control.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Discretion of Court — Principles Governing Exercise of Discretion
In applications for extension of time, the court's discretion is not fettered as long as sufficient reason has been disclosed to justify the court's exercise of its discretion in favour of the applicant. The administration of justice normally requires that the substance of all disputes should be investigated and decided on their merits and that errors and lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from pursuit of their rights.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Statutory Powers — Section 96 Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 6
Under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has inherent power to enlarge time for a party to perform an act required by court if sufficient reasons are shown by such a party, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kwera Stella Ngirabakunzi v Ntabgoba Jeninah (Parliamentary Election Petition Appeal No. 17 of 1996)
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Sabiiti Kachope and 3 Others v Margaret Kamuje (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 31 of 1997)
  • Shanti v Handocha [1973] EA 207
  • Essavi v Solankirui [1968] EA 218
  • Mueo v Wanjiru [1970] EA 461
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naume Binsobedde (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
  • Sipiriva Kvarulesire v Justin Bakanchulike Bagamhe (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sekibule v Sabasitiano and Another (Miscellaneous Application 64 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 227 (24 July 2023)
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.