Wakilii

Standard Chartered Bank (U) Limited v Amin Rizwan (Miscellaneous Application 418 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 21 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to serve memorandum of appeal arising from Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2017
Decision
Application granted with extension of time to file and serve proper memorandum of appeal within 15 days; costs awarded against applicant

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

The High Court granted the bank extension of time to serve its memorandum of appeal despite finding dilatory conduct, holding that mistake of former counsel constituted sufficient cause and that the interests of justice required determination of the appeal on its merits, but ordered costs against the applicant bank in any event due to its failure to monitor the appeal over four years.

Outcome

Application granted with extension of time to file and serve proper memorandum of appeal within 15 days; costs awarded against applicant

Facts

Standard Chartered Bank instructed lawyers M/s Byenkya, Kihika & Co. Advocates to file an appeal from a Chief Magistrate's judgment delivered 29 June 2017. The lawyers filed a memorandum of appeal on 12 July 2017 allocated reference Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2017, but failed to sign or serve it on the respondent. The bank claimed to have followed up on several occasions and was told the appeal was pending hearing. On 7 April 2021, nearly four years later, the bank was served with an application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and discovered the memorandum had never been served. The bank then instructed new lawyers who filed the present application on 27 May 2021 seeking extension of time to serve the memorandum of appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has established sufficient reasons for Court to extend time in which to serve the Memorandum of Appeal?
  2. Whether the Applicant is guilty of dilatory conduct?
  3. Whether any injustice will be caused if the application is not granted?

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to file and serve a duly signed memorandum of appeal, within 15 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • The costs of this application shall be met by the Applicant in any event.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Mistake of Counsel
Mistake by an advocate, even when negligent, should not be visited on an innocent litigant and constitutes sufficient cause for failure to act within time as to entitle an applicant to enlargement of time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Dilatory Conduct — Due Diligence by Litigant
For a litigant to rely on the principle that mistake of counsel constitutes sufficient cause, the litigant must be innocent in the matter, which requires that the party must have exercised due diligence by monitoring the progress of their case; where a litigant makes no contact with their advocates for years and cannot produce evidence of correspondence to support assertions of following up, the litigant is guilty of dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Balancing Factors — Interests of Justice
Where sufficient cause exists for delay in serving a memorandum of appeal on account of mistake of counsel, and the application for extension is brought without inordinate delay upon discovery of the mistake, the court may grant extension of time despite finding dilatory conduct by the applicant, where the proposed appeal contains arguable points and the interests of justice require determination on the merits, but costs may be awarded against the applicant in any event to reflect the dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Administration of Justice — Substance over Procedural Lapses
The administration of justice should normally require that the substance of disputes should be investigated and decided on their merits, and errors and lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from pursuit of their rights; denying a subject a hearing should be the last resort of court.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (13)

  • James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises Ltd v Kampala City Council and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2017)
  • Nicholous Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Hon. Gerald Kafureeka Karuhanga and Another v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 060 of 2015)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • William Odoi Nyandusi v Jackson Oyuko Kasendi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2018)
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
  • Captain Phillip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owoto (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Stone Concrete Limited v Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 358 of 2012)
  • Seperi Kyamulesiire v Justine Bikanshiire Bagambe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
  • Butebi Investment Enterprise Ltd v Kibalama Mugwanya (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 354 of 2013)
  • Auma and 2 Others v Okuti Nasur (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2016)
  • Re Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira [1992-93] HCB 85
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] UGSC 1

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.

Standard Chartered Bank (U) Limited v Amin Rizwan (Miscellaneous Application 418 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 21 (29 January 2024)
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.