Sophie Baluka Kalukusu Herzogenrath v William Kyagulanyi (Miscellaneous Application No. 2940 of 2024)

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

The High Court dismissed an application for enlargement of time to file a notice of appeal and appeal out of time. The applicant failed to prove sufficient cause, having provided no evidence of diligent efforts to instruct former counsel to file the appeal within the prescribed period. The court held that merely stating that lawyers were instructed without providing corroborating evidence such as phone records or WhatsApp messages was insufficient, and that equity aids the vigilant not the indolent.

Outcome

Application for enlargement of time dismissed

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment against the applicant in Civil Suit No. 575 of 2016 on 28 June 2024, with awards of UGX 50,000,000 in general damages and UGX 150,000,000 in special damages. The applicant, a resident of Germany, claimed she instructed her former lawyers M/s Soita & Co. Advocates to file an appeal but they failed to do so. She discovered this failure and instructed new counsel M/s Mutalya & Co. Advocates on 29 October 2024, who filed this application on 5 November 2024 seeking enlargement of time to file a notice of appeal and appeal out of time. The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant's lawful attorney Maiso John Kennedy was based in Kampala and should have followed up. The court noted that the former lawyers participated in a taxation hearing on 16 October 2024 without mentioning any appeal, and that the power of attorney to Maiso John Kennedy was only executed on 28 October 2024.

Issues

1. Whether the Application discloses sufficient cause for Court to exercise its discretion and enlarge time to allow the Applicant file her notice of Appeal and Appeal out of time?

Orders

• The Application is dismissed.
• The Respondents are awarded costs of the Application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.66
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.79(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 51 Rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rules 1, 2 and 3
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 76(2)

Cases cited (5)

• Mulowooza & Brothers Limited v N. Shah & Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
• Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
• Bishop Jacinto Kibuuka v The Uganda Lawyers Catholic Society & 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 2018)
• Afayo Luiji & Another v Izio Enzama Akueson (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0073 of 2017)
• Shanti v Hindocha & Others [1973] EA 207

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.

• Sophie Baluka Kalukusu Herzogenrath v William Kyagulanyi (Miscellaneous Application No. 3299 of 2024)

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