Wakilii

Sole Electrics (U) Limited v Makumbi & Another (Civil Application 5 of 1993)

Supreme Court · [1993] UGSC 44 · 1993 Application Allowed 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 serve, or to validate late service of, the record of appeal
Decision
Application allowed; applicant granted seven days to serve the record of appeal on both respondents

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

On an application under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court for extension of time to serve the record of appeal, the single judge held that, although the delay arose from the applicant's counsel's lack of diligence in lodging insufficient and irregular copies of the record, an advocate's blunder should not ordinarily be visited on an innocent litigant by striking out the appeal. The court has a free discretion to determine what amounts to sufficient reason, and damages against a negligent advocate are rarely a satisfactory answer. The applicant, having ultimately served the respondents, had shown sufficient reason. The application was allowed and a seven-day extension granted.

Outcome

Application allowed; applicant granted seven days to serve the record of appeal on both respondents

Facts

The applicant filed a civil appeal (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1992) from a judgment of the High Court in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1992. Its law clerk initially lodged only four copies of the record of appeal at the Supreme Court Registry instead of the number required for two respondents, and the record contained irregularities requiring re-numbering and re-binding. The Assistant Registrar pointed out the error. After the copies were corrected and released, counsel inadvertently failed to re-lodge the record in time, so service on the respondents was effected on 6 October 1992, outside the prescribed seven-day period. The appeal had earlier been called for hearing and adjourned after a preliminary objection that the 2nd respondent had not been served with the notice of appeal. The applicant applied under Rule 4 for an extension of time to serve, or to validate the late service of, the record.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court for an extension of time to serve, or validation of late service of, the record of appeal.
  2. Whether negligence or inadvertence of the applicant's counsel in preparing and lodging the record constituted sufficient cause for an extension of time.
  3. Whether the existence of a cross-appeal dependent on the main appeal constituted sufficient cause to extend time.
  4. Whether the respondents' failure to give notice of their addresses for service excused the late service of the record.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant granted an extension of seven (7) days from the date of the ruling within which to serve both respondents with the record of appeal.
  • Costs of the application to follow the result of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Rule 4 Discretion to Determine Sufficient Reason
Under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court the court has a free discretion to determine what constitutes sufficient reason for extending time, and each application is considered on its own merits.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Mistake or Blunder of Counsel Not Visited on Innocent Litigant
Where an advocate has made a blunder, it is important not to visit that blunder on the innocent litigant by striking out the appeal; lack of diligence operates in some degree in all mistakes but does not necessarily bar relief.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Damages Against Advocate Not a Sufficient Remedy
An action in damages against a negligent advocate is rarely a satisfactory answer, as it forces the litigant into a second piece of litigation; the administration of justice normally requires that the substance of disputes be decided on their merits.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Cross-Appeal as Sufficient Cause
The existence of a cross-appeal whose fate is dependent on the main appeal may constitute sufficient cause to extend time under Rule 4.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Not Granted Automatically
Extension of time under Rule 4 is not granted automatically; it will be granted only where there are sufficient reasons to do so, balancing observance of the rules against the courts' need not to be stultified by procedural rules.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.75
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.78
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.87

Cases cited (6)

  • In re Estate of Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira (Civil Application No. 8 of 1988)
  • N & S Airport Services Ltd vs The Attorney General of Kenya (1959) E.A.
  • N. Matovu vs Kiranuka (supra)
  • Ngooni-Maten Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd vs Alimohamed (1959) E.A. 577
  • Gatti v Shoosmith [1939] 3 All E.R. 916
  • Beoyi ya Solanki (1958) E.A. 218 at page 224

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sole Electrics (U) Limited v Makumbi & Another (Civil Application 5 of 1993) [1993] UGSC 44 (5 April 1993)
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.