Wakilii

The Executrix of the Estate of The Late Namatovu v Noel Grace Shalita Stananzi [1988] UGSC 3

Supreme Court · 1988 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single judge of the Supreme Court under rule 4 of the Rules for extension of time within which to file an appeal from a High Court judgment.
Decision
Application for extension of time allowed; applicant granted fourteen days within which to file the appeal.

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 an application to a single judge of the Supreme Court under rule 4 for extension of time to file an appeal, the decree not having been extracted in time, Odoki JSC held that a single judge has no jurisdiction to strike out an appeal, so the respondent's objection failed, and proceeded to the merits. An applicant must show sufficient reason for the delay, but a mistake or negligence of counsel is not necessarily a bar. Here the delay arose from a defective decree drawn by the respondent's counsel and approved by the Deputy Registrar, not from any want of diligence by the applicant. The application was allowed and fourteen days' extension granted.

Outcome

Application for extension of time allowed; applicant granted fourteen days within which to file the appeal.

Facts

The applicant filed a notice of appeal from a High Court judgment (Mukanza Ag. J) of 13 October 1987 in Civil Suit No. 99 of 1987. The Deputy Registrar certified the record of proceedings complete and delivered it to the applicant's firm on 28 January 1988, and the firm filed the record of appeal the same day, but before any decree had been extracted. The decree was drafted by the respondent's counsel and approved by the Deputy Registrar on 25 May 1988; the applicant filed it as a supplementary record on the same day. The decree was then found defective, having omitted one of the two plots that were the subject matter of the suit, and was rectified by the Deputy Registrar under the slip rule in August 1988. Because no appeal lies until the decree appealed from is extracted, and a decree cannot be filed as a supplementary record, the applicant sought an extension of time within which to file the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether a single judge of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application to strike out a notice of appeal or an incompetent appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for an extension of time within which to file the appeal, where the decree had not been extracted in time.
  3. Whether a mistake or negligence of counsel is a bar to obtaining an extension of time within which to file an appeal.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The applicants are granted an extension of fourteen days from the date of this ruling within which to file the appeal.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause
An applicant for extension of time within which to file an appeal must satisfy the court that he was prevented by sufficient reason from adhering to the time limit set out in the Rules, and that sufficient reason must relate to the applicant's inability to take the step in time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Mistake or Negligence of Counsel
A mistake or negligence of counsel is not necessarily a bar to an applicant obtaining an extension of time, particularly where the applicant had no professional control over the conduct that caused the delay.
Civil Procedure — Record of Appeal — Decree as a Basic Document
No appeal lies until the decree or order appealed from has been extracted; a record of appeal that omits the decree is incompetent, and the decree cannot be filed as a supplementary record because it is a basic and not a supplementary document.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Powers of a Single Judge
A single judge of the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application to strike out a notice of appeal or an appeal; that power lies with the full court.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Effect of Order on Documents Already Lodged
When the time for lodging a document is extended, the document is duly lodged if it was lodged within the time as extended, whether the actual lodging was before or after the order of extension; the effect of the order is to validate or excuse the late filing.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Court of Appeal Rules 1972 r.4
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.9
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.12(c)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.31
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.85(1)(h)

Cases cited (16)

  • Kyamulabi V. Zirondomu Civil Application No. 41/79 (1980) H.C.B.
  • Mattori Pharmacy V. ... City Council, Civil Application No. 6h9 (1979) H.C.B. 112
  • Bakulira Transport Bus Co. Ltd v. Biribonua Civil Application No. 7/79 (1979) H.C.B. 95
  • Kisenge ... Estates Ltd V. H.A. Vrathrani (1952) E.A. 60
  • Mukasa V. Odroll (1968) E.A. 89
  • Essaji v Solanki (1968) E.A. 218
  • Patel Incorporated v The Official Receiver and Provisional Liquidator (1959) E.A. 5
  • Commissioner of Transport v Attorney General of Uganda (1959) E.A. 129
  • Kiboro v Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (1974) E.A. 155
  • Bank of Uganda V. Ed[ward] Rod[rigo] Civil Appeal No. ? of 1987 (unreported)
  • Mbogo v Shah (1970) E.A. 441
  • Shanti V. Hindocha (1973) [E.A.]
  • Gatti v Shooshmith (1939) 3 All E.R. 916
  • Shabir Din v Ram Parkash Anand (1955) 22 E.A.C.A. 48
  • Msoli-Matonge Co-operative ... Live Stock ... Union Ltd V. Osman (1959) E.A. 577
  • E.A. ... Air Service Ltd v. Attorney General of [Uganda]

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Executrix of the Estate of The Late Namatovu v Noel Grace Shalita Stananzi [1988] UGSC 3 (4 November 1988)
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.