Wakilii

Sole Electrics Uganda Limited v Makumbi and Another (Civil Application No. 5 of 1993)

Supreme Court · [1993] UGSC 59 · 1993 Application Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for an extension of time to serve the record of appeal on the respondents, or alternatively to validate the service effected out of time, in an appeal from a High Court judgment.
Decision
Application allowed; applicant granted seven days from the date of the ruling to serve both respondents with the record of appeal.

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 served out of time, the court held that it has a free discretion to determine what amounts to sufficient reason, that such applications are not granted as of course but each is decided on its merits, and that where an advocate has made a blunder it should not be visited on an innocent litigant, a remedy in damages against the advocate not being a sufficient answer. The applicant's counsel having taken steps to correct his mistake and effected service, sufficient reason was shown. The application was allowed and a seven-day extension granted.

Outcome

Application allowed; applicant granted seven days from the date of the ruling to serve both respondents with the record of appeal.

Facts

The applicant appealed a High Court judgment (Egonda-Ntende J.) and lodged the record of appeal at the Supreme Court registry. Only four copies were lodged though six were required because there were two respondents. The record had also been improperly compiled, paginated and numbered, necessitating correction and re-binding, which was completed on 6 October 1992. The corrected record was served on the respondents the following day, outside the seven days allowed for service after lodging. Counsel for the applicant deposed that the delay was caused by his own inadvertence or negligence and asked that the litigant not suffer for it. Counsel for the 2nd respondent opposed the application, contending that no sufficient reason for the extension had been shown.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court to justify an extension of time within which to serve the record of appeal, or validation of service effected out of time.
  2. Whether the delay in serving the record, caused by counsel's lack of diligence, should be visited on the litigant by striking out the appeal.
  3. Whether the respondents' alleged failure to lodge and serve a notice of address for service under Rule 78 afforded a ground for the application.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant granted an extension of seven 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

Appeals — Extension of time — Rule 4 — Scope of the court's discretion
Under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court the court has a free discretion to determine what is sufficient reason for extending time; such an application is not granted as of course but only where sufficient reason is shown, and each case is to be considered on its own merits.
Appeals — Advocate's negligence — Blunder not to be visited on an innocent litigant
Where an advocate has made a blunder it is important not to visit that blunder on an innocent litigant; the availability of a remedy in damages against the advocate is rarely a satisfactory answer to refusing the litigant relief.
Service of record of appeal — Rule 78 — Notice of address for service
A respondent's failure to lodge or serve a notice of address for service under Rule 78 does not afford a ground for extending time where the applicant in fact effected service on the respondent, since service could not have been effected had the respondent's address been unknown.
Notice of appeal — Objection for non-service under Rule 76 — Procedure
An objection that a notice of appeal has not been served on the respondent renders the appeal incompetent; such an objection can only be properly taken at or before the hearing of the appeal and can only be determined by a full court.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.76
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.78
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.87

Cases cited (5)

  • Executrix of the Estate of Christine Mary Namatovu Tebajjukira v Noel Grace Shalita Stanazi (Civil Application No. 8 of 1986)
  • N. Matovu vs Kivanuka
  • Mengo Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd vs Mohamed Hassan (1959) E.A. 577
  • Gatti vs Shoosmith (1919) 3 All E.R. 915
  • Esaji vs Solanki (1968) E.A. 218

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sole Electrics Uganda Limited v Makumbi and Another (Civil Application No. 5 of 1993) [1993] UGSC 59 (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.