Wakilii

Ssebina David and Others v Pearl Development Group Ltd and Others (Misc.Application No. 2079 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 85 · 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 on jurisdictional grounds

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 such applications must be filed within 14 days. Rule 5 of the same Rules empowers only the Court of Appeal to extend time limits set by those Rules. 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.

Outcome

Application dismissed on jurisdictional grounds

Facts

The applicants filed an application to amend the plaint (Misc. Application No. 151 of 2024) which was dismissed by Justice Aisha Naluzze on 4 March 2024. The applicants applied for a certified copy of the proceedings and ruling, which was availed on 24 April 2024. The applicants 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 seeking validation of the late filing and extension of time. The respondents opposed the application, arguing it was time-barred, overtaken by events (as the application for leave to appeal had already been heard and was pending ruling), and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to extend time for filing an application for leave to appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is properly before the court?
  2. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to extend time within which to file an 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 — Application for Leave to Appeal
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to extend time for filing an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Rule 5 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions empowers only the Court of Appeal to extend time limits set by those Rules.
Civil Procedure — Statutory Interpretation — Section 79(2) Civil Procedure Act
Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act concerns the time for filing appeals, not applications for leave to appeal. The section empowers the appellate court to admit an appeal filed out of time but does not apply to applications seeking leave to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Applications for Leave to Appeal — Time Limits
An application for leave to appeal in civil matters must be filed within 14 days after the decision is made, as provided by Rule 40(2)(a) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Waira James Kyewalabye Majegero Sitingo v Kubeketeryo James (Election Petition Nos. 16 & 17 of 2021)
  • Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (HCMA No. 89 of 2022)
  • Pharmaceutical Society v URA General (HC MC No. 260 of 2019)
  • Livingstone Kayasa Kizito v Charles Valigo (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_Others_v_Pearl_Development_Group_Ltd_and_Others_(Misc.Application_No._2079_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_85_(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.