Uganda Commercial Bank v Severio Oryeda (Civil Application 3 of 1986)

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 for extension of time to lodge an appeal, the court held that where the delay is attributable entirely to the court's failure to supply the requested copy of the proceedings, that constitutes 'sufficient reason' under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant had filed a notice of appeal in time and repeatedly requested the proceedings, which were not provided. The court further held that the application was properly brought under Rule 4 (extension of time) rather than Rule 81, and that an affidavit need not establish that the appeal is likely to succeed, since 'sufficient reason' relates to the inability to take the step in time. Extension granted; costs to abide the result of the appeal.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; applicant permitted to file the appeal within thirty days

Facts

The applicant, Uganda Commercial Bank, was the unsuccessful party in a High Court civil suit decided by Kato, J. on 24 March 1986. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 4 April 1986 and, on 6 May 1986, wrote to the Deputy Chief Registrar requesting a copy of the proceedings to prepare the record of appeal, but received only the judgment. A further request was made on 8 July 1986. By the time of the hearing of this application, the proceedings had still not been supplied. The applicant accordingly sought an extension of time to lodge the appeal. A concurrent application for stay of execution was abandoned because the decretal sum of Shs. 2,798,973/40 had already been paid to the respondent.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient reason for an extension of time to lodge an appeal where the delay was attributable to the court's failure to supply a copy of the proceedings.
2. Whether the application was properly brought under Rule 4 rather than Rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
3. Whether an affidavit in support must address the prospects of the appeal succeeding for the court to grant an extension of time.

Orders

• Leave granted to file the appeal outside the prescribed time, within thirty days from the date of the ruling.
• Costs to abide the result of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Court of Appeal Rules r.4
• Court of Appeal Rules r.81
• East African Court of Appeal Rules 1954 r.9

Cases cited (4)

• National Pharmacy Ltd v Kampala City Council (Civil Application No. 6 of 1979)
• Mugo & Others v Wanjiru and Another (1970) EA 481
• Shah v Jamnadas (1959) EA 838
• Shatt V. Tejwant Singh (1962) E.A. 497

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

• Dr. Loki John Baptist v Oloo Paul (Consolidated Election Appeal 12 of 2021)
• Dr. Lokii John Baptist v Oloo (Election Petition Application No. 12 of 2021)
• Dr. Lokii John Baptist v Oloo Paul (Consolidated Election Petition Application No. 12 & 412 of 2021)
• Kakembo v Bikako and Another (Election Petition Application 32 of 2016)
• Kakembo Micheal v Bikako and Another (Election Petition Application No.32 of 2016)

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