Wakilii

Sseruwuge v Kinoni Traders Cooperative Savings Credit Society (Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 10 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time arising from Civil Suit No. 122 of 2015
Decision
Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

An application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed where the applicant failed to adduce evidence proving he instructed his lawyer to file an appeal and failed to take basic procedural steps such as filing a notice of appeal or requesting certified proceedings. The court held that relying on counsel negligence without proof of instruction and in circumstances of inordinate delay amounted to an afterthought intended to delay justice.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed

Facts

The applicant was defendant in Civil Suit No. 122 of 2015. Judgment was entered against him on 19 December 2019. The applicant claimed he instructed his lawyer to file an appeal within days of judgment delivery but the lawyer allegedly forgot to process the appeal. The statutory period for filing an appeal is thirty days under the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71. The application was filed on 11 February 2020, outside the stipulated time. The applicant produced no evidence that he instructed his lawyers. No notice of appeal was filed and no request for certified proceedings was made. The respondent did not file a reply or enter appearance. Service was effected on the respondent's lawyers on 9 September 2021.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the grant of leave to appeal out of time.
  2. Whether the alleged negligence of counsel constituted sufficient cause to warrant extension of time.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs since the respondent did not enter appearance.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal Out of Time — Sufficient Cause
An applicant seeking leave to appeal out of time must demonstrate sufficient cause, which must relate to the inability or failure to take the necessary step within the prescribed time and not to taking a wrong decision.
Civil Procedure — Counsel Negligence — Proof Required
For mistake or negligence of counsel to amount to sufficient cause for extension of time, the litigant must establish that there was no form of bad faith on the litigant's part, that the application has not been brought with inordinate delay, and that counsel was actually instructed.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Grounds Must Merit Consideration
Leave to appeal will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, the intended appeal has reasonable chance of success, or the decision sought to be appealed conclusively determines the rights of the parties.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (9)

  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdener Bank [1971] EA 17
  • Sango Bay Estate v Dresdner Bank [1971] EA 17
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Mugo v Wanjiri [1970] EA 481
  • Njagi v Munyiri [1975] EA 179
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Ggoloba Godfrey v Harriet Kizito (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2006)
  • Zam Nalumansi v Sulaiman Bale (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 1999)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sseruwuge v Kinoni Traders Cooperative Savings Credit Society (Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 10 (17 January 2022)
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.