Wakilii

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

Supreme Court · [2024] UGSC 27 · 2024 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the full Supreme Court from the ruling of a single Justice dismissing an application for extension of time to file and serve a memorandum and record of appeal.
Decision
Reference dismissed; the single Justice's ruling refusing an extension of time stands

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

The full Court dismissed the reference and upheld the single Justice's refusal to extend time. Although the Covid-19 lockdown excused part of the delay, the applicant failed to account for the nine months between the lifting of the lockdown and its out-of-time filing, and a further six months before seeking leave; once delay is unexplained its length is immaterial. The applicant was guilty of laches. Mistake of counsel, not having been pleaded before the single Justice, could not be introduced on the reference, as rule 52(2) bars additional evidence without leave. The cases relied on by the applicant were therefore inapplicable, and the single Justice had properly exercised her discretion.

Outcome

Reference dismissed; the single Justice's ruling refusing an extension of time stands

Facts

The applicant lost a land suit (HCCS No. 166 of 2010) and its appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 26 June 2019. It filed a notice of appeal and obtained typed proceedings by October 2019 but did not lodge its memorandum of appeal within 60 days. On 19 March 2020, by consent, Kisaakye JSC extended time, ordering filing by 21 April 2020. That evening a nationwide Covid-19 lockdown began, lifting on 4 June 2020. The applicant did not file until 21 April 2021, without first seeking leave, and only applied for extension of time (Civil Application No. 46 of 2021) some six months later. A single Justice, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza JSC, dismissed that application on 14 January 2022, finding the applicant guilty of laches for failing to act during the nine months after the lockdown lifted. The applicant referred that ruling to the full Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the single Justice failed to take into account the evidence presented by the applicant explaining its inability to file the memorandum of appeal by the ordered date, when dismissing Civil Application No. 46 of 2021 for extension of time.
  2. Whether the applicant could raise mistake of counsel on the reference when that ground had not been raised before the single Justice.

Orders

  • The reference is dismissed.
  • Costs of the reference to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason and the Burden to Account for Delay
An applicant for extension of time bears the burden of proving sufficient reason for failing to take the required step within time, and must account for the entire period of delay; once a period of delay is left unexplained, the length of the delay is immaterial.
Civil Procedure — Reference from a Single Justice — Additional Evidence and New Grounds
On a reference to three judges from the decision of a single Justice, no additional evidence may be adduced without the leave of the Court under rule 52(2) of the Supreme Court Rules; a ground such as mistake of counsel that was not raised before the single Justice cannot be introduced on the reference.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Laches and Repeated Indulgence
Where an impediment such as a lockdown is lifted, an applicant must act promptly and seek leave before filing out of time; protracted inactivity thereafter amounts to laches, and the leniency afforded on a first extension cannot be extended indefinitely to excuse repeated breaches of procedural timelines.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature Act s.8(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.4
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.41(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.52(1)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.52(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.79
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • F.L Kaderbhai & Anor v Shamsherali & Others (Civil Reference No. 20 of 2008)
  • Attorney General v Lutaaya (Civil Application No. 12 of 2007)
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Limited v Shah & Co. Ltd (Civil Application No. 20 of 2010)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • James Bwogi and Sons Enterprises v Kampala City Council (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Registered Trustees of the Hindu Union v Kagoro (Civil Reference 2 of 2022) [2024] UGSC 27 (25 June 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.