St. Kizito Youth Farm Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 58 of 1997)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court considered whether the applicant had shown 'sufficient reason' under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996 to extend time for filing a notice of appeal. The judgment had been delivered in the absence of the applicant and its counsel, who had not been served with notice of the delivery date, and the applicant only learned of the outcome after the time to appeal had expired. Distinguishing Rosette Kizito v Administrator General (where an 18-month delay was attributable to mere forgetfulness), the court held that lack of knowledge of the outcome owing to non-service constituted sufficient reason. The application was allowed with costs in the cause and the applicant was directed to file its notice of appeal within fourteen days.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; applicant directed to file notice of appeal within 14 days.

Facts

The applicant sought leave to file a notice of appeal out of time against a judgment delivered on 16 June 1997. The application, supported by the affidavit of counsel Mr. Yesero Mugenyi, was lodged on 12 December 1997. The sole ground was that the judgment had been delivered in the absence of the applicant and its counsel, who had not been served with notice of the date of delivery, with the result that the applicant only learned of the outcome after the time to lodge a notice of appeal had expired. The respondent opposed the application, contending there had been inordinate delay of about six months and that no sufficient reason had been shown. The court found, from the copy of the judgment and the reply affidavit of Tumwebaze Kenneth, that the judgment had indeed been delivered in the parties' absence and that the applicant most likely was never served with the necessary notice.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient reason under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996 to warrant extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time.

Orders

• Application allowed with costs in the cause.
• Applicant to file notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.4
• Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.42(1)
• Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.42(2)
• Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.43(1)
• Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.43(2)
• Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.52(1)

Cases cited (3)

• Rosette Kizito v Administrator General (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
• Mugo v Wanjiri [1970] EA 481
• Njagi v Munyiri [1975] EA 179

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Kato Jackson v Kabugho Byakutaga Caroline (Civil Application No. 293 of 2015)
• Musa Afwerk Tekle v Commissioner Land Registration and 2 Others (Civil Reference 258 of 2020)

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