The Registered Trustees of the Hindu Union v Kagoro & 2 Others (Civil Application 46 of 2021)

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

On an application under Rule 5 to extend time to appeal, the applicant relied on COVID-19 lockdowns as sufficient reason for failing to file within the time previously granted. The single Justice held that while the applicant was not to blame for the lockdowns, sufficient reason must explain the failure throughout the relevant period. The applicant took no steps during the roughly nine months between the lifting of the first lockdown and the second, filed its documents out of time without leave, and delayed a further six months before seeking validation. Finding the applicant guilty of laches and dilatory conduct and that no sufficient reason was shown, the Court struck out the application with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time struck out with costs

Facts

The applicant owned land comprised in FRV 62 Folio 1 which was expropriated following the 1972 expulsion of Asians. In 2006 the applicant repossessed part; the remainder was excised, registered as FRV 318 Folio 18, and sold to the third respondent, who transferred it onward until it reached the first respondent. The applicant sued all three respondents in the High Court alleging fraudulent transfer and sought cancellation of the first respondent's title. The High Court dismissed the suit and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision in Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2018. The applicant lodged a Supreme Court appeal out of time. A first extension of time was granted by consent before Justice Kisaakye, JSC, directing filing by April 2020, but that time expired during the COVID-19 lockdown imposed on 19 March 2020. The first lockdown was lifted on 4 June 2020; a second ran from 18 June to 1 August 2021. The applicant filed its documents in April 2021 and applied for validation only on 1 November 2021.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient reason under Rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court to warrant an extension of time within which to file its appeal.
2. Whether the COVID-19 lockdowns constituted sufficient reason excusing the applicant's failure to file its appeal within the time previously prescribed.

Orders

• Application struck out.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.5
• Expropriated Properties Act

Cases cited (5)

• Boney Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
• Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)
• Joy Tumushabe v Anglo African Limited & Another (Civil Application No. 14 of 1998)
• James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises Ltd v Kampala City Council & Kampala District Land Board (Civil Application No. 9 of 2017)
• Rosette Kizito v Administrator General (Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)

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.

• The Registered Trustees of the Hindu Union v Kagoro (Civil Reference 2 of 2022)

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