Wakilii

Ssebina David and Another v Pearl Development Group Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application 2079 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 275 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal from a ruling dismissing an application to amend the plaint
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

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 High Court lacks jurisdiction to extend time for filing an application for leave to appeal. Rule 40(2)(a) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions confers jurisdiction on the High Court to hear applications for leave to appeal, but Rule 5 vests the power to extend time for such applications in the Court of Appeal, not the High Court. Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act concerns appeals, not applications for leave to appeal. The preliminary objection was sustained and the application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

The applicants filed an application to amend the plaint in Miscellaneous Application No. 151 of 2024, which was dismissed by Justice Aisha Naluzze Bataala on 4 March 2024. The applicants applied for a certified copy of the proceedings and ruling, which was availed on 24 April 2024. They filed an application for leave to appeal on 23 May 2024, more than 30 days after the ruling. The applicants then filed the instant application in August 2024 seeking validation of the late filing and extension of time. The respondents opposed the application, arguing it was time-barred, overtaken by events, and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to extend time for filing an application for leave to appeal. The respondents contended that the proper forum was the Court of Appeal under Rule 5 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is properly before the Court
  2. Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to extend time within which to file the application for leave to appeal
  3. Whether the application for extension of time should be granted

Orders

  • Preliminary objection sustained.
  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal — High Court Jurisdiction
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to extend time for filing an application for leave to appeal. Rule 40(2)(a) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions confers jurisdiction on the High Court to hear applications for leave to appeal, but Rule 5 vests the power to extend time for such applications in the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Statutory Interpretation — Section 79(2) Civil Procedure Act — Scope of Application
Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which empowers an appellate court to admit an appeal after the limitation period has elapsed, concerns appeals and not applications for leave to appeal.
Administrative Law — Statutory Interpretation — Specific Provisions Prevail Over General Provisions
Where a specific law, section, or rule provides for a matter, one cannot resort to a general law, section, or rule. The Court of Appeal Rules, which specifically limit the time for filing an application for leave to appeal, prevail over the general provisions of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Waira James Kyewalabye Majegero Sitingo v Kubeketeryo James (Court of Appeal Election Petition Nos. 16 & 17 of 2021)
  • Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 89 of 2022)
  • Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 260 of 2019)
  • Livingstone Kayaga Kizito v Charles Waligo (Miscellaneous Application No. 80 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssebina_David_and_Another_v_Pearl_Development_Group_Ltd_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_2079_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_275_(10_June_2025)
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.