Wakilii

Tirupati Development (U) Limited v Uganda Elevator Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2569 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 164 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to validate a civil appeal filed out of time
Decision
Application dismissed; respondent awarded costs

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

Held that the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for validating a civil appeal filed out of time. The applicant's argument that delay was caused by the court's delay in releasing the ruling was rejected because Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act automatically excludes time taken by the court in preparing records from the limitation period. The preliminary objection that the applicant failed to serve the notice of appeal on the respondent was dismissed, as there is no legal requirement to serve such notice on the respondent in appeals to the High Court. Application dismissed for lack of merit.

Outcome

Application dismissed; respondent awarded costs

Facts

The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 67 of 2022 seeking to set aside an order dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 197 of 2019. The application was heard and dismissed with costs on 12 July 2023. The applicant subsequently filed Civil Appeal No. 099 of 2023 on 29 October 2023, which was out of time. The applicant then brought this application seeking to validate the late appeal, arguing that the delay was caused by the court's delay in releasing a copy of the ruling. The respondent opposed the application, contending that the applicant had been dilatory and failed to demonstrate sufficient cause. The respondent also raised a preliminary objection that the applicant failed to serve the notice of appeal on the respondent as required by law. The applicant failed to file written submissions as directed by the court.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause shown by the Applicant warranting validation of Civil Appeal No. 099 of 2023?
  2. Whether the application is defective and/or incompetent on the grounds that no reason was advanced for the failure to serve the Notice of Appeal and/or letter requesting the typed record of proceedings on the Respondent as required by the law?

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • The Respondent is awarded the costs of this Application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Validation of Late Appeals — Good Cause
An appeal filed out of time without leave of court is incompetent and will be struck out. Under Section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the appellate court may admit an appeal filed after the prescribed limitation period only where the applicant demonstrates good cause, defined as a legally sufficient reason why the court should exercise its discretion to validate the late filing.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Exclusion of Time for Court Processes
Under Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, time taken by the court or registrar in making a copy of the decree or order appealed against and of the proceedings upon which it is founded is automatically excluded from the computation of the limitation period. An applicant cannot rely on the court's delay in typing a ruling as good cause for filing an appeal out of time, as this time is already excluded by operation of law.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Service of Notice of Appeal — No Legal Requirement to Serve Respondent
There is no legal requirement that obligates an intending appellant to copy and serve a request for certified copy of the trial court's record of proceedings or a notice of appeal to the respondent in appeals to the High Court. While such service may be done as a matter of courtesy and practice, it is not a legal obligation.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Requirements
A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. It raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (11)

  • Byaruhanga Joseph v Natongo Elizabeth Wandera (High Court Civil Appeal No. 062 of 2014)
  • Elizabeth Kobusingye v Annet Zimbiha (Miscellaneous Application No. 245 of 2019)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] 1 EA 696
  • Pontrilas Investments Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya and Another (Reference No. 8 of 2017)
  • Kellia Obaya and Another v Ovuru Stephen (Civil Appeal No. 002 of 2015)
  • Maria Onyango Ochola and others v J. Hannington Wasswa [1996] HCB 43
  • Loi Kageni Kiryapawo v Gole Nicholas Davis (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 15 of 2007)
  • Hajj Mohammed Nyanzi v Ali Sseggane [1992-1993] HCB 218
  • Pinnacle Projects v Business in Motion Consultants (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)
  • Dr. B.B Byamugisha v Alison Kantarama (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 229 of 2019)
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tirupati Development (U) Limited v Uganda Elevator Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2569 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 164 (9 May 2025)
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.