Wakilii

Uganda Debt Network v Sekyewa (Miscellaneous Application 1017 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 59 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file an appeal against a taxation ruling arising from Civil Suit No. 669 of 2014
Decision
Extension of time granted; applicant may now file appeal against taxation ruling

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 court granted the extension of time finding that the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay where no credible evidence proved the applicant was notified of or participated in the taxation proceedings, and the applicant did not unduly delay after becoming aware of the taxation decision.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; applicant may now file appeal against taxation ruling

Facts

The Respondent obtained judgment against the Applicant in Civil Suit 669 of 2014 with costs. The costs were taxed and a certificate issued for UGX 21,601,400 on 18 June 2021. The Applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 192 of 2021 against the main judgment. While the appeal was pending, the Applicant filed Miscellaneous Application 1657 of 2023 for stay of execution and review of taxation proceedings. The court directed the Applicant to file an appeal or application for leave to appeal out of time within thirty days. The Applicant contended it was never notified of the taxation proceedings, never received the bill of costs or taxation certificate, and only learned of the taxation result after filing HCMA 1657/2023. The Respondent asserted that the Applicant's advocates attended the taxation hearings on multiple dates and were aware of the outcome. The taxation record was unavailable to the court.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause for the grant of an extension of time to file an appeal against the taxation ruling
  2. Whether the applicant unduly delayed in seeking the extension of time

Orders

  • Extension of time of fifteen (15) days granted within which the Applicant may file an appeal challenging the decision of the taxing master.
  • Time to begin running from the day after delivery of this ruling.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Distinction Between Good Cause and Sufficient Cause
Good cause and sufficient cause are not the same standard. Good cause requires a party to show a legally sufficient reason why the court should exercise its discretion in their favour and may exist despite a party's own mistake. Sufficient cause implies a much higher standard requiring a party to show they are not guilty of default or that it cannot be attributable to them.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Appeals Against Taxation — Statutory Basis
Section 61(1) of the Advocates Act provides that any person affected by an order or decision of a taxing officer may appeal within thirty days to a judge of the High Court. Appeals against decisions of the taxing master do not arise out of the Civil Procedure Rules but from the Advocates Act, although reference to wrong law is not fatal where the court has jurisdiction and the procedure applied can entertain the prayers sought.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Extension of Time
The High Court has inherent powers by virtue of Section 33 of the Judicature Act and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to grant an extension of time, but the grant of such extension is a discretion which must be exercised in accordance with clear principles.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Hearsay in Substantive Applications
Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that affidavits be confined to facts the deponent can prove of their own knowledge, except on interlocutory applications where statements of belief may be admitted provided grounds are stated. In substantive applications, hearsay evidence adduced by a party who did not personally attend proceedings is inadmissible.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Case Management — ECCMIS — Judicial Notice
The court may take judicial notice of the workings of the ECCMIS system including that the system typically sends notices to parties of hearing dates or where steps have been taken, and where a hearing or taxation notice is taken out all linked advocates are notified. Failure to access an ECCMIS account and obtain notices on case progress may be a basis for seeking discretionary remedies such as extension of time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Delay — Request for Record of Proceedings
Where a party asserts that proceedings took place in their absence and seeks to challenge the same or seek extension of time, the relevance of obtaining the record of proceedings before filing the application is insignificant. The party can lead evidence of their absence and it is for the respondent to adduce evidence of participation. Refusal to file an application for extension of time because the record has not been provided can expose the applicant to rejection for undue or designed delay.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Inordinate Delay — Assessment
What constitutes undue delay is assessed on a case-by-case basis. A delay of just over one month is not an undue delay where the applicant is an unnatural person which likely has a long administrative approval process for litigation.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (21)

  • Gids Consults Limited and Another v Naren Mehta (Miscellaneous Application No. 864 of 2022)
  • Saggu v Roadmaster Cycles Ltd 2002 1 EA 258
  • Cwezi Properties v Uganda Development Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 1315 of 2022)
  • Kagumaho Musana v Rama and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 933 of 2019)
  • Tullow Uganda Limited and Another v Jackson Wabyona and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 443 of 2017)
  • Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and Another v Commissioner Land Registration and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2428 of 2023)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika George William (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Muzamilu Ayile v Rose Tarapke and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2023)
  • J Mark Sekibuule v Sebastiano Sebagala (Miscellaneous Application No. 64 of 2021)
  • Parimal v Veema Civil Appeal No. 1467 of 2011
  • Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 993
  • Musoke Hussein and Others v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 1, 6, 7 and 8 of 2015)
  • Ephraim Mwesigwa v The Management Committee of Nyamirima School (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2011)
  • Jacob Mutabazi v Seventh Day Adventist Church (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 88 of 2011)
  • Justine Opolot v Aura Livingstone (High Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2009)
  • Energo Projekt v Brig. Kasirye Ggwanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 588 of 2009)
  • Mwesigye Nicholas v P&A Credit Investments Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1677 of 2022)
  • David Muhenda v Humphrey Mirembe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2012)
  • Fred Byamukama and Another v Michael Katungye (Miscellaneous Application No. 773 of 2022)
  • Femisa International Limited and Others v Equity Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 357 of 2022)
  • Abel Belemesa v Yesero Mugenyi (Miscellaneous Application No. 126 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Debt Network v Sekyewa (Miscellaneous Application 1017 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 59 (29 February 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.