Shiv Construction Co.Limited V Endesha Enterprises Limited (Civil Application 15 of 1992)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On a reference from a single Judge who had refused an extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal, the full Court held that the delay was not inordinate. The delay arose from a dispute between the client and his former advocate and from the absence on holiday of new counsel, whose explanation was unchallenged by affidavit in reply. Following Opoloto v Attorney General, delay attributable to counsel's absence may attract the Court's indulgence. Where the delay is short, the merits of the intended appeal need not be examined. The single Judge's refusal was unreasonable, so the Court allowed the reference, set aside the ruling and granted seven days to lodge the notice of appeal.

Outcome

Reference allowed; extension of time granted to lodge the notice of appeal within 7 days

Facts

Following a High Court decision delivered on 13 December 1991, the applicant was represented by Mr. Mulira. A dispute arose between the client and his advocate concerning whether the client could be present in court and over what had occurred at the hearing. The client only learnt on 19 December 1991 that a ruling had been delivered against him. Dissatisfied, he sought further advice and wished to instruct Mr. Nangwala, who was away on holiday. The client first saw Mr. Nangwala and gave instructions on 3 January 1992. Counsel could not peruse the record until 6 January 1992, and a copy of the ruling was supplied later. The application for extension of time was filed on 17 January 1992, the time for appealing having expired on 27 December 1991. From counsel's instructions to filing took 14 days, and the application was filed just outside one month.

Issues

1. Whether the delay in lodging the notice of appeal was inordinate so as to disentitle the applicant to an extension of time.
2. Whether sufficient reason was shown to extend the time for lodging a notice of appeal where the delay was caused by a dispute with, and the absence of, counsel.
3. Whether the single Judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to grant the extension of time.

Orders

• Reference allowed.
• Ruling of the single Judge set aside.
• Extension of time granted to lodge the Notice of Appeal within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
• Applicant to have the costs of the application before the single Judge.
• Each party to bear his own costs of the reference.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (1)

• Opoloto v Attorney General of Uganda (1969) EA 496

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal 8 of 1998)

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