Wakilii

Sezi Busasi and Another v Kareba and Another (Civil Application 6 of 1978)

Court of Appeal · [1979] UGCA 2 · 1979 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out notice of appeal and cross-application for leave to extend time to institute an intended appeal
Decision
Extension of time refused and notice of appeal struck out; intended appeal cannot proceed

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 Court of Appeal held that the power to extend time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is exercisable only for sufficient reason relating to the inability to take the required step in time. The applicant bears the burden of satisfying the court that it was not possible to lodge the appeal within the prescribed time; only after sufficient reason is shown does the court consider prospects of success or prejudice. Counsel's own inordinate delay and unexplained laches, as opposed to a bona fide mistake, are not sufficient reason. Since no explanation was offered for the substantial delay following receipt of instructions, the extension application was dismissed with costs, and the application to strike out the notice of appeal succeeded.

Outcome

Extension of time refused and notice of appeal struck out; intended appeal cannot proceed

Facts

Judgment was given against the defendants (intending appellants) in the Magistrate Grade I Court at Mbarara. Their first appeal to the High Court was dismissed on 4 October 1977. Their counsel, Mr. Mulenga, filed a notice of appeal against that judgment on 18 October 1977, which was duly served on counsel for the original plaintiffs. Almost a year later, the plaintiffs' counsel applied to strike out the notice of appeal on the ground that no further step had been taken within the prescribed time. During the pendency of that application, Mr. Mulenga applied on 6 December 1978 for extension of time, on the ground that a copy of the court record was not ready when the period for instituting the appeal expired. He received the record on 19 August 1978, so the appeal should have been instituted on or about 19 October 1978. His affidavit disclosed no explanation for the substantial delay in instituting the appeal after receiving instructions to proceed.

Issues

  1. Whether there was sufficient reason to grant the intending appellants an extension of time to institute their intended appeal.
  2. Whether counsel's own inordinate delay and laches could constitute sufficient reason for failing to institute the appeal within the prescribed time.
  3. Whether the respondents' notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to take a step in the proceedings within the prescribed time.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time dismissed with costs.
  • Application for striking out the notice of appeal granted with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason Requirement
The power to extend time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules may be exercised only where there is sufficient reason relating to the inability to take the particular step in time; the burden lies on the applicant to satisfy the court that it was not possible to lodge the appeal within the prescribed period.
Appeals — Extension of Time — Order of Consideration
A court considers prejudice, prospects of success and other discretionary factors only after the applicant has first advanced sufficient reason for the delay; prospects of success alone cannot found an extension of time.
Appeals — Extension of Time — Counsel's Laches Distinguished from Bona Fide Mistake
Counsel's own inordinate and unexplained laches cannot constitute sufficient reason for extending time; a distinction must be drawn between a bona fide mistake of a legal adviser, which may amount to sufficient cause, and clear inordinate delay through negligence, which does not.
Appeals — Notice of Appeal — Striking Out for Failure to Take a Step in Time
Where an intending appellant has filed a notice of appeal but failed to take a further step within the prescribed time and is refused an extension of time, the notice of appeal ought to be struck out.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Court of Appeal Rules r.4

Cases cited (5)

  • Charles Kangenite to v. Uganda, E.A. Criminal Application No. 1 of 1976
  • Mugo v. Wanjiru (1970) E.A. 481, 483
  • Ratnam v. Cumarasamy and Another (1954) 3 All E.R. 933 (P.C.)
  • Bharmal v. Santosh Kumari, (1961) E.A.
  • Gatti v. Shoosmith (1939) 1 All E.R.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sezi Busasi and Another v Kareba and Another (Civil Application 6 of 1978) [1979] UGCA 2 (29 January 1979)
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.