Wakilii

Sepiriya v Bagambe (Civil Appeal 20 of 1995)

Supreme Court · [1997] UGSC 12 · 1997 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single judge of the Supreme Court for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time, and to regularise the intended appeal.
Decision
Application for extension of time granted; applicant permitted to file and serve the notice of appeal out of time.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 3 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 19 citing cases on record, 7 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 a preliminary objection that the application should first have been made to the High Court, the single judge held that in a civil appeal the extension of time to file a notice of appeal falls within the exclusive discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under its Rules, and overruled the objection. On the merits, the court held that the errors, omissions and negligence of an advocate should not be visited upon a litigant who instructed counsel within the prescribed time and had no control over the advocate's conduct. The administration of justice favours deciding disputes on their merits. The application for extension of time was accordingly granted.

Outcome

Application for extension of time granted; applicant permitted to file and serve the notice of appeal out of time.

Facts

Judgment in a High Court civil suit was delivered against the applicant. His advocate filed a notice of appeal within the prescribed time, but no copy of the notice was served on the respondent. There followed successive changes of advocates. The memorandum and record of appeal could not be filed because the respondent had not been served with the notice of appeal. The applicant later learned that one of his advocates was the subject of disciplinary proceedings and had been delaying the appeal. He instructed fresh advocates to regularise the matter. The subject matter of the intended appeal was land on which the applicant had a permanent house and developments. The applicant maintained that the failures were the fault of his advocates, whom he had instructed in time, and not his own.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for extension of time ought first to have been made to the High Court before coming to the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal out of time where the delay was caused by the negligence of his successive advocates.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Application granted; extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal granted.
  • Costs of the application to abide the results of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
In a civil appeal, the extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal falls within the exclusive discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under its Rules, and need not first be sought before the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Negligence of Counsel
The errors, mistakes, omissions or negligence of an advocate should not be visited upon a litigant who instructed counsel within the prescribed time and had no control over the advocate's conduct.
Civil Procedure — Administration of Justice — Determination on the Merits
The administration of justice normally requires that the substance of a dispute be investigated and decided on its merits, and a litigant should not necessarily be debarred from the pursuit of his rights by errors and lapses for which he is not responsible.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.41
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.76(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Mazzora v Rukuba, Civil Application No. 1/91 (unreported)
  • Otti v Shoosmith
  • Shanti v Hindocha (1973)
  • Henry Kyamanywa v Mardin Matovu
  • Sebei v Solhki (1968) EA 224
  • [1939] 3 All ER 916

Cases citing this judgment (18)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sepiriya v Bagambe (Civil Appeal 20 of 1995) [1997] UGSC 12 (6 August 1997)
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.