Wakilii

Wasswa Matovu v Makerere University and Others (Civil Application 11 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 38 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for extension of time within which to lodge an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision
Decision
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed; orders sought declined

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

On an application under Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules and section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act for extension of time to appeal, the court held that extension is discretionary and turns on proof of sufficient cause. The applicant, though self-represented, took approximately one and a half years to check on the status of his Court of Appeal matter and offered no explanation for that laxity, rendering him culpable of inordinate delay. Having perused the Court of Appeal judgment, the court found the underlying dispute extinguished and the intended appeal had no prospect of success. The application was dismissed, each party to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed; orders sought declined

Facts

The applicant, a researcher in the first respondent's faculty, won a post-doctoral fellowship research grant in 2006. The final disbursement of USD 1,499.25 was transferred to the first respondent's faculty account for onward payment to the applicant, the second and third respondents being the authorised agents administering that account. The funds were not paid to the applicant; the respondents stated the bank could not credit the faculty account because of incorrect account particulars supplied by the applicant, and the funds were returned to the remitter on 2 September 2010. The applicant's mandamus application in the High Court was dismissed and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision in Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2012, hearing it on 16 July 2019 and delivering judgment on notice on 11 November 2019. The applicant said he was not notified and only discovered the judgment on 5 January 2021, obtaining the certified record in April 2021, by which time the time to appeal had expired.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause to warrant an extension of time within which to lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the applicant was guilty of inordinate and unexplained delay in seeking the indulgence of the court.
  3. Whether the intended appeal was arguable and had a reasonable prospect of success.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Orders sought declined.
  • Each party to meet its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause as Precondition
Under Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules and section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act, time to do an act may be extended only where the applicant shows sufficient cause, which must relate to the inability or failure to take the necessary steps and must not arise from dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Discretion of the Court
The grant of an extension of time is discretionary and depends on proof of good cause showing that the justice of the matter warrants the extension; what constitutes sufficient cause depends on the circumstances of each case.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Inordinate Delay and the Self-represented Litigant
A litigant interested in pursuing a case cannot allow more than a year to pass without ascertaining its status, and the duty to keep timely informed applies equally to an unrepresented litigant; unexplained failure to do so amounts to inordinate delay that defeats an application for extension of time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Prospects of Success of Intended Appeal
Where an applicant is guilty of inordinate delay and fails to demonstrate that the intended appeal is arguable and likely to succeed, the application for extension of time will be refused; the prospects of success are assessed from the record, the judgment appealed from, and the proposed memorandum of appeal.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owoto (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Shanti v Hindocha and others [1973] EA 207

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wasswa Matovu v Makerere University and Others (Civil Application 11 of 2021) [2022] UGSC 38 (28 July 2022)
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.