Wakilii

Turinawe & Anor v Kyalimpa & 4 Ors [2013] UGSC 12

Supreme Court · 2013 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the full Supreme Court from a single Justice's ruling granting extension of time to file a record of appeal.
Decision
Reference to the full bench dismissed; the single Justice's grant of extension of time to the respondents 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.

Judicial journey

Appeal & case history

3 linked decisions

Follow this matter from the decision below through each appellate court.

Varied The decision below was changed in part.
See the court’s words
“(b) in any civil matter wishes to have any order, direction or decision of a single judge varied, discharged or reversed by the court, the applicant may apply for it informally to the judge at the time when the decision is given or by writing to the registrar within seven days after that date.”
Supreme Court This decision
Turinawe & Anor v Kyalimpa & 4 Ors [2013] UGSC 12 (6 June 2013)
[2013] UGSC 12
Affirmed The decision below was upheld.
See the court’s words
“As all the other members of the Court agree, this appeal is dismissed with costs to the second respondent and as between the appellants and the first respondent each party is to meet its own costs.”
Supreme Court decision located in the Wakilii corpus. Linked from court records and operative language in the judgments.

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 Supreme Court dismissed the reference, upholding the single Justice's grant of extension of time to file a record of appeal. The supporting affidavit was not defective: the burden lay on the applicants to cross-examine and prove that the commissioner for oaths was absent when it was sworn, which they failed to do. A single judge has discretion whether to refer an interlocutory ruling on a preliminary objection to a full bench; the right is not absolute. Reliance on a negligent former advocate, absent dilatory conduct by the litigant, was sufficient cause for the delay. The nine-month delay in delivering the ruling did not breach the right to a fair and speedy hearing.

Outcome

Reference to the full bench dismissed; the single Justice's grant of extension of time to the respondents stands.

Facts

The first applicant, Engineer Ephraim Turinawe, sold a residential property at Kololo, the family's matrimonial home, and transferred it to the second applicant, Dewark Limited, without the consent of his wife (first respondent) and children (other respondents). The respondents sued in the High Court to nullify the sale and transfer and succeeded. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision on 20 November 2009. The respondents filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court but their former advocates, after the proceedings were certified ready in March 2010, took no steps to file the appeal. In October 2010 the respondents learnt the notice of appeal was about to be struck out, changed advocates, and applied for extension of time to file the record of appeal. A single Justice granted the extension, finding the respondents were laymen who relied on negligent counsel and were not guilty of dilatory conduct. The applicants referred that ruling to a full bench on six grounds.

Issues

  1. Whether the single Justice erred in overruling the preliminary objection that the supporting affidavit was incurably defective for non-compliance with the Oaths Act.
  2. Whether the single Justice erred in declining to refer her ruling on the preliminary objection to a full bench.
  3. Whether the single Justice erred in finding that the delay in filing the record of appeal was caused by the respondents' former advocate.
  4. Whether the single Justice erred in finding that the respondents had shown sufficient cause for the delay.
  5. Whether the single Justice failed to consider the applicants' submissions and authorities before allowing the application.
  6. Whether the time taken to deliver the ruling occasioned a miscarriage of justice or denied the applicants a fair and speedy hearing.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavits — Oaths Act — Commissioner for Oaths — Burden of proof
Where a deponent states that an affidavit was signed in her advocate's chambers, that statement does not establish that the commissioner for oaths was absent; the party alleging that the affidavit was improperly sworn bears the burden of cross-examining the deponent to prove the commissioner's absence.
References from a single judge — Discretion — Interlocutory rulings
The right under Rule 52 to refer a single judge's decision to a full bench is not absolute; a single judge retains discretion to decline to refer an interlocutory ruling on a preliminary objection and may continue hearing the application, leaving the ruling open to challenge after the application is decided.
Extension of time — Sufficient cause — Negligence of advocate
The negligence, mistake, error or omission of a former advocate constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time where the litigant, having relied on the advocate, is not himself guilty of dilatory conduct.
Costs — Discretion of the court
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs are within the discretion of the judge; although costs normally follow the event, a judge may, for a justifiable reason, decline to award costs to a successful party.
Fair hearing — Right to typed proceedings
Refusing to furnish counsel with a typed and certified copy of proceedings of which counsel was fully appraised, before he makes submissions, does not violate the right to a fair hearing under article 28(1) of the Constitution.
Conduct of counsel — Relationship between bench and bar
Counsel must conduct a client's case with passion that never degenerates into disrespect for the judge; the relationship between the bench and the bar should remain cordial and respectful, both being officers of the court intent on administering justice.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kakooza John Baptist v Electoral Commission and Anthony Yiga (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2007)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Hasa Agencies (K) Ltd (Civil Reference No. 1 of 2011)
  • Paul Masiga v Toro & Mityana Tea Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1999)
  • Godfrey Magezi & Another v Sudhir Ruparelia (Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turinawe & Anor v Kyalimpa & 4 Ors [2013] UGSC 12 (6 June 2013)
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.