Walugembe v Kagimu (Civil Appeal 27 of 1999)

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.

Holding

On a reference from a single Judge's grant of leave to appeal out of time, the full Court held that the application was misconceived because no notice of appeal had been lodged within the fourteen days prescribed by rule 75 of the Rules of the Court. Without a notice of appeal there was no basis for an application to appeal out of time, and the application should have been struck out. The correct course was to apply for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The Court found this ground alone disposed of the reference, adding that the respondent had also failed to explain the relevant delay. The reference was allowed with costs to the appellant.

Outcome

Reference allowed; the single Judge's grant of leave to appeal out of time set aside, the application having been misconceived for want of a notice of appeal

Facts

The respondent was the defendant in High Court Civil Suit No. 84 of 1997. When the case was adjourned for the defence to begin, the respondent was delayed travelling from Entebbe and a short adjournment was granted. He failed to arrive on time, allegedly due to a traffic jam. The trial Judge refused a further adjournment and required defence counsel to proceed; counsel could not proceed in the respondent's absence and withdrew. Judgment was later entered for the appellant after written submissions. The respondent, not informed of the subsequent proceedings or judgment, applied to set it aside; this was refused as the court had proceeded under O.15 r.4. By then the time to appeal had expired. His application to the High Court for extension of time was dismissed. He then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal out of time, which a single Judge granted, but no notice of appeal had been lodged. The appellant brought this reference.

Issues

1. Whether a single Judge could grant leave to appeal out of time where no notice of appeal had been lodged within the time prescribed by rule 75.
2. Whether there was sufficient reason on record to extend the time within which to appeal.

Orders

• The reference is allowed with costs to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.1(3)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.1(4)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.4
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.41
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.75
• Civil Procedure Rules O.15 r.4

Cases cited (1)

• Essaji & others Vs Solanki [1968] EA 218

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