Wakilii

Uganda v John Nawaswa & Anor (Misc. Application No. 16 of 1995)

High Court · [1996] UGHCCRD 7 · 1996 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by the DPP for leave to lodge notice of appeal out of time under section 328A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, following acquittals by a magistrate Grade I
Decision
Application for leave to lodge notice of appeal out of time dismissed

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 dismissed the DPP's application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time. The court held that no reasonable cause was shown for the six-month delay between the acquittals and the application, particularly where the state was represented throughout by an Assistant Inspector of Police who ought to have reported the outcome promptly. The supporting affidavit was also found inadmissible as hearsay and defective, having been sworn by a witness who lacked personal knowledge of the reasons for delay.

Outcome

Application for leave to lodge notice of appeal out of time dismissed

Facts

The two respondents were charged with embezzlement of UGX 2,260,000 before a magistrate Grade I at Jinja. One was acquitted on 21 March 1995 and the other on 17 May 1995. No appeal or notice of appeal was filed until the complainant (Kakira Sugar Works) was served with a notice of intention to sue for damages. The learned Senior State Attorney was then contacted. He stated that he received communication about the acquittals through one Lasu on 28 June 1995 and obtained the police file in July 1995. The application for leave to appeal out of time was filed on 19 September 1995, approximately six months after the first acquittal. The state was represented throughout the trial by an Assistant Inspector of Police.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established good cause for failure to lodge notice of appeal within 14 days as required by law.
  2. Whether the affidavit sworn in support of the application was valid and admissible.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the 2 respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Good Cause — Meaning and Application
The expression 'good cause' in section 326(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code must be given its natural and grammatical meaning and relates to the applicant's inability or failure to take a particular step within the time stipulated by law, assessed by considering all the circumstances surrounding the case.
Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Delay — Duty of Prosecution to Report Outcome
Where the state is represented throughout criminal proceedings by a prosecutor, the prosecutor bears a duty to communicate the outcome to his superiors immediately after the court's decision. A delay of six months in filing an application for leave to appeal, attributed to lack of timely communication, does not constitute good cause where the state was represented and the delay suggests indifference or afterthought following threatened civil litigation.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Hearsay — Competence of Deponent
An affidavit sworn in support of an application for extension of time to appeal must be sworn by a person with personal knowledge of the reasons for delay. An affidavit containing hearsay evidence by a deponent who lacks personal knowledge of the cause of delay is inadmissible and worthless.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.328A(1)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.326(6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Mugocud and Others v Onjira and Others (1970) EA 481
  • Charles Kangemiteto v Uganda (1976) HCR 124
  • Zaidi A Sulaiman v R (1958) EBA 65
  • Aristeia Kabwimukya v John Kasigwa (1978) HCB 251
  • In the matter of bail application no. 478/74 and in the matter of Jinja criminal case no. 54 of 1974 HCB 201
  • Abdu Serunjoji v Jakitto (1977) HCB 242

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v John Nawaswa & Anor (Misc. Application No. 16 of 1995) [1996] UGHCCRD 7 (10 June 1996)
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.