Wakilii

Tumusiime t a Bakery Limited and Another v San Sara Agro Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application 186 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 103 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time and stay of execution following dismissal of appeal for being filed out of time
Decision
Leave to appeal out of time granted; applicants may now pursue their 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

The High Court held that leave to appeal out of time should be granted where the delay was caused by counsel's error rather than the applicant's dilatory conduct. The court found sufficient cause under Section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, emphasizing that parties should not be shut out from having their disputes determined on the merits due to procedural mistakes by their advocates. The application was allowed, with costs to abide the result of the appeal.

Outcome

Leave to appeal out of time granted; applicants may now pursue their appeal

Facts

The respondent sued the applicants in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Bushenyi for recovery of UGX 11,000,000 arising from supply of cooking oil. Judgment was entered for the respondent on 27 February 2020. The applicants filed a notice of appeal on 4 March 2020 and a memorandum of appeal on 22 July 2020. On 20 May 2022, the High Court struck out both documents and dismissed the appeal on a preliminary point of law, holding that the appeal had been filed out of time because a notice of appeal could not commence an appeal. The applicants then filed this application on 6 July 2022 seeking leave to appeal out of time. The application was initially dismissed on 30 November 2022 for non-appearance but was reinstated on 3 May 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to grant leave to appeal out of time.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal out of time allowed.
  • Costs of the application to abide the results of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal Out of Time — Sufficient Cause
Under Section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, an appellate court may admit an appeal after the prescribed limitation period has elapsed where the applicant demonstrates sufficient cause, which embraces legal and adequate reasons that provide a plenitude sufficient to accomplish the purpose intended in light of existing circumstances when viewed from the reasonable standard of practical and cautious persons.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Advocate's Error — Effect on Client
Where an appeal has been dismissed due to a procedural error or blunder by an advocate, such as filing the wrong document to commence an appeal, the client should not be punished for the advocate's mistake, and the court should exercise its discretion to grant leave to appeal out of time in the interest of justice and to allow the dispute to be determined on its merits.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Advocate as Deponent — Competence
An advocate may swear an affidavit on behalf of a client where the advocate has personal knowledge of the facts and the matter is formal or non-contentious, but an advocate should not act as both counsel and witness in the same case where the matter is contentious and the advocate may be required to give evidence subject to cross-examination, in accordance with Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.
Civil Procedure — Misnomer — Amendment of Party Name
Where there exists a misnomer or mistake in naming a party in a legal instrument which was done in good faith and the document speaks the truth, the court has discretionary power to allow amendment to correct the name, provided such amendment does not prejudice the rights of the other party and will enable the court to effectually adjudicate upon and settle all questions in controversy between the parties.
Administrative Law — Judicial Discretion — Substantive Justice Over Technicalities
In accordance with Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, substantive justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities, and the administration of justice should normally require that the substance of all disputes be investigated and decided on their merits rather than allowing errors or lapses to debar a litigant from the pursuit of their rights, unless lack of adherence to rules renders the process difficult and inoperative.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (29)

  • Mugoya Construction v Central Electricals International Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 609 of 2011)
  • Bankone Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
  • Greenwatch v Attorney General and Another [2003] EA 83
  • Pattni v Ali and Others [2005] 1 EA 339
  • Ismail v Kamukamu and Others [1986-1989] EA 165
  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye, Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1994)
  • Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi and Another v Mwangi Stephen Murithi and Another [2014] eKLR
  • Comfoam Uganda Limited v Megha Industries (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1084 of 2014)
  • Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Ssimbwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 576 of 2017)
  • Attorney General v Sanyu Television (Civil Suit No. 614 of 1998)
  • Kyaninga Royal Cottages Limited v Kyaninga Lodge Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 551 of 2018)
  • Trust Ventures Ltd v Powerfoam (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 669 of 2017)
  • Saggar v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] EA 25
  • Col. Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri & EC (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Baryaija v Kikwisire and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 324 of 2017)
  • Hamam Singh Bhogal t/a Hamam Singh & Co. v Jadva Karsan (1953) 20 EACA 17
  • Baku Raphael v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50
  • Sango Bay Estate v Dresdner Bank & Attorney General [1971] EA 17
  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Ltd v Transocean (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Kiboro v Posts & Telecommunications Corporation [1974] 1 EA 155
  • Kabogere Coffee Factory Ltd and Another v Kigongo [1990-1994] 1 EA 130
  • Balwant Singh vs Jagdish Singh and Ors (Indian Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006)
  • Mugo and Others v Wanjuiru and Another [1970] 1 EA 481
  • Shanti v Hindocha and Others [1973] EA 207
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Githere v Kimungu [1976-1985] 1 EA 101
  • Phillip Keipto Chemwolo and Another v Augustine Kubende [1986] KLR 495
  • Ojara v Okwera (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 23 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tumusiime t a Bakery Limited and Another v San Sara Agro Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application 186 of 2022) [2023] UGCommC 103 (31 August 2023)
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.