Wakilii

Ssemakula v Asiimwe (Civil Application 16 of 2022; Civil Application 18 of 2022)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 11 · 2023 Application Dismissed; Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file an appeal out of time, consolidated with a cross-application to dismiss the appeal for being filed out of time
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed; cross-application to dismiss allowed; Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2022 struck out

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 consolidated applications, the Supreme Court held that the appeal in Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2022 had been filed out of time and that the applicant had not shown sufficient cause for an extension. The delay was attributable to the laches and sloppiness of the applicant's lawyers, which cannot constitute sufficient cause. Neither the Christmas season (save the designated public holidays) nor the Covid-19 period excused the default, the registry having remained open throughout. The application for extension of time was dismissed, the cross-application to dismiss was allowed, and the appeal was struck out.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed; cross-application to dismiss allowed; Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2022 struck out

Facts

Herman Ssemakula intended to pursue Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2022 in the Supreme Court but did not take the necessary steps to follow up the appeal. The record of proceedings was received on 2 December 2021 and the record of appeal was filed on 15 February 2022, outside the 60-day period for filing an appeal. Ivan Asiimwe filed Civil Application No. 016 of 2022 seeking to dismiss the appeal for being filed out of time. Ssemakula then filed Civil Application No. 018 of 2022 seeking an extension of time to file the appeal or, alternatively, validation of the appeal already filed out of time. The application to extend time was filed after the application to dismiss. The affidavit supporting the extension application was sworn by an advocate, Jacob Kalaabi, rather than the applicant, and used the collective term "we" in several paragraphs.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established sufficient cause to warrant an extension of time within which to file Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2022.
  2. Whether the appeal, having been filed out of time, should be dismissed or struck out.

Orders

  • Civil Application No. 018 of 2022 (for extension of time) is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • Civil Application No. 016 of 2022 (to dismiss the appeal) is allowed with costs to the applicant.
  • Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2022 is struck out.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Conditions for Sufficient Cause
An applicant seeking an extension of time must prove that the cause of the delay is not attributable directly or indirectly to him, that there was a failure to take a particular step within the prescribed time, and that the delay was not on his part.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Laches of Counsel
Sloppiness or laches on the part of an applicant's lawyers in prosecuting an appeal does not amount to sufficient cause to warrant an extension of time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Registry Availability and Statutory Deadlines
Neither the Christmas season, save for the designated public holidays of Christmas and Boxing Day, nor the Covid-19 period excuses a failure to meet statutory filing deadlines where the court registry remained open to receive pleadings.
Evidence — Affidavits — Reliability of Affidavit Sworn by Advocate
An affidavit in support of an individual's application that is sworn by an advocate and repeatedly uses the collective term "we" raises questions as to whether it is the deponent's individual affidavit as required by law, undermining its reliability.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.2
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.5
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.42(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.43
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.78
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.79
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.80
  • Supreme Court Rules r.110(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 r.4

Cases cited (1)

  • Registered Trustees of the Hindu Union v Kagoro Epimarc and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssemakula v Asiimwe (Civil Application 16 of 2022; Civil Application 18 of 2022) [2023] UGSC 11 (14 April 2023)
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.