Uganda Telecom Ltd v Mweteise & 24 Ors (Civil Application No. 134 of 2014)

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

The single Justice held that, although the applicant failed to pay the second installment by the deadline causing the stay of execution to lapse automatically, the court retains power under Rule 5 to extend time for doing an act required by a decision of the court, even after expiry. However, the applicant had not shown sufficient reason for the delay, so the application substantively failed. Nevertheless, to safeguard the right of appeal and prevent the pending appeal from being rendered nugatory, the court invoked its inherent powers under Rule 2(2) and Rule 42(2) on its own motion to grant a consequential extension of time and keep the stay of execution in force pending the appeal, with costs ordered against the applicant.

Outcome

Application substantively failed for lack of sufficient reason, but a consequential extension of time granted on the court's own motion and the stay of execution maintained pending appeal; costs awarded to respondents

Facts

The applicant, Uganda Telecom Limited, was dissatisfied with a judgment in HCCS No. 135 of 2003 and filed Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2013. In Civil Application No. 388 of 2013, the Court of Appeal on 20 December 2013 granted a stay of execution conditional on the applicant paying the respondent shs. 1,000,000,000 in two installments of shs. 500,000,000, the second due on or before 31 January 2014, failing which the stay would lapse automatically. The applicant paid the first installment but instructed its bank for the second only on 30 January 2014; due to insufficient funds on one account, the transfer was effected and credited to the respondents' advocates only on 4 February 2014. The respondents subsequently extracted a Garnishee Order Nisi on 4 April 2014 for over shs. 77 billion. The applicant filed this application on 9 April 2014 seeking extension of time to comply with the payment condition.

Issues

1. Whether the court has power to extend time to comply with a condition of an order after that order has automatically lapsed.
2. Whether the applicant showed sufficient reason to warrant an extension of time under Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal.
3. Whether the court should invoke its inherent powers and powers under Rule 42(2) to grant a consequential extension of time to safeguard the right of appeal.

Orders

• A consequential order granted extending the time in which the applicant was required to pay the respondent the 2nd installment of shs. 500,000,000 from 31st January 2014 to 4th February 2014.
• The order of stay of execution of the decree in HCCS 135 of 2003 shall remain in force pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2013.
• The costs of this application shall be paid by the applicant.
• The Registrar is directed to ensure the appeal is fixed for hearing at the earliest date possible.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Rules of the Court of Appeal (Judicature) r.2(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal (Judicature) r.5
• Rules of the Court of Appeal (Judicature) r.42(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal (Judicature) r.43
• Civil Procedure Act s.98

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Kabaka of Buganda v Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka (Misc. Application No. 675 of 2017)

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