Wakilii

Ssemakula Godfrey and Another v Najjuka Jalia Shalom (Miscellaneous Application No. 313 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 37 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out memorandum of appeal for being filed out of time
Decision
Application dismissed; memorandum of appeal validated and admitted

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 dismissed an application to strike out a memorandum of appeal filed ten days late. The court held that although the appeal was filed outside the fourteen-day period granted by an earlier ruling, the delay was attributable to counsel's negligence in monitoring the ECCMIS portal rather than the litigant's fault. Applying sections 79(1)(a) and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court found sufficient cause to validate the late filing, emphasising that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice where the litigant acted promptly once the ruling became known.

Outcome

Application dismissed; memorandum of appeal validated and admitted

Facts

The applicants sought to strike out a memorandum of appeal filed by the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 0038 of 2025, arguing it was filed out of time. The respondent had been granted leave to file an appeal within fourteen days of a ruling delivered on 22 April 2025. The appeal was filed on 16 May 2025, ten days after the deadline of 6 May 2025. The respondent contended that although the ruling was delivered on 22 April 2025, it only became visible on her lawyers' ECCMIS portal on 16 May 2025, and that she had personally followed up with court clerks after the ruling had been repeatedly deferred without notice. The applicants argued that ECCMIS automatically notifies parties when rulings are uploaded and that the delay constituted deliberate disregard of the court order.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's Appeal is incompetent for having been filed out of time?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The prayer to strike out the memorandum of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 0038 of 2025 is dismissed.
  • The Respondent's memorandum of appeal is validated and admitted.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of this Application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Time — Interpretation Act s.34(1)(a)
In computing time for filing an appeal, the day on which the ruling or decree is delivered is excluded, and time begins to run on the following day.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Good Cause — Counsel's Negligence
A litigant ought not to bear the consequences of default by an advocate unless the litigant is privy to the default or the default results from the failure on the part of the litigant to give the advocate due instructions. Negligence or oversight by counsel in monitoring the ECCMIS portal constitutes good cause for extending time where the litigant acted promptly once the ruling became known.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Duty of Intending Appellant
It is the duty of an intending appellant to actively take the necessary steps to prosecute an intended appeal. However, where the appellant exercises reasonable vigilance by personally following up with court clerks and making inquiries, and the delay is attributable to counsel's failure to monitor the ECCMIS system, the appellant has fulfilled the duty of vigilance.
Civil Procedure — Discretion of Court — Extension of Time — Substantive Justice over Technicalities
The court is vested with wide and unfettered discretion under sections 79(1)(a) and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to admit an appeal after the lapse of the prescribed limitation period where sufficient cause is shown. This discretion is intended to prevent technicalities from defeating substantive justice and to ensure that disputes are determined on their merits rather than on procedural lapses.
Civil Procedure — ECCMIS — Electronic Court Records — Notification and Access
ECCMIS automatically notifies all parties once a ruling is uploaded. Disregarding notices sent on ECCMIS constitutes outright negligence on the part of counsel. However, such negligence cannot be visited on the litigant in the absence of evidence that the litigant was privy to the default.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (18)

  • Geoffrey Nangumya t/a Nangumya & Co. Advocates v Security Plus (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 858 of 2021)
  • George Kasangaki and Another v Financial Access and Trade Service (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1101 of 2022)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] ALLER 4567
  • Captain Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Iwota (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Hamam Singh Bhogal T/a Hamam Singh & Co. v Jadva Karsan (1953) 20 EACA 17
  • Baku Raphael v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2000)
  • Uganda Ginners & Cotton Exporters Ltd and 11 Others v Mudu Awulira (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 97 of 2014) [2014] UGCommC 59
  • Hajji Mohammed Nyanzi v Ali Ssegane [1992-1993] HCB 218
  • Kasibante Moses v Electoral Commission (Election Petition Application No. 7 of 2012)
  • Mwesigye Nicholas v P & A Credit Investment Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1677 of 2022)
  • Zamu Nalumansi and Another v Sulaiman Lule (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1992)
  • Phillip Keipto Chemwolo and Another v Augustine Kubende [1986] KLR 495
  • Attorney General v AKPM Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 2007)
  • Apollo Bright Bweyakye and Others v Professor Sam Tulya-Muhika (Civil Application No. 239 of 2023) [2025] UGCA
  • Bitamisi Namuddu v Rwebuganda Godfrey (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssemakula Godfrey and Another v Najjuka Jalia Shalom (Miscellaneous Application No. 313 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 37 (27 January 2026)
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.