Westmont Land (Asia) Ph.D v Attorney General and Another (Civil Application 61 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 an application for extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal, the Court held that the delay was not attributable to the applicant's dilatory conduct but to counsel's insistence that security for the due performance of a decree exceeding Shs. 32 billion be put in place, and to the applicant being based abroad. Counsel filed the application within two days of receiving the required security. The Court found sufficient cause shown and that, given the large sums involved and the public importance of the divestiture of the country's biggest commercial bank, the interests of justice required the applicant be heard on appeal. The application was allowed.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; applicant to lodge notice of appeal within seven days.

Facts

The applicant, a Malaysian company, failed to file a written statement of defence and a default judgment for a decree exceeding Shs. 32 billion was entered in favour of the respondents. Its application in the High Court for leave to appeal and for a stay of execution was refused on 17 August 1999, leave being declined because the applicant had refused to be party to the proceedings, and stay being refused because no security for the due satisfaction of the decree had been furnished. The applicant then had until 31 August 1999 to seek leave from the Court of Appeal but did not. Counsel had received instructions to appeal on 12 July 1999 but did not act because specific instructions on providing security for the decree were required; those instructions came on 14 September 1999, after which the application was filed within two days. The applicant, based in Malaysia with directors scattered in England, Singapore and Malaysia, needed time to raise the substantial security. The matter concerned the divestiture of the biggest commercial bank in Uganda.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing an application for leave to appeal so as to justify an extension of time under rules 4 and 42 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal.

Orders

• The application for extension of time is allowed.
• The counsel for the applicant shall lodge the notice of appeal within seven days from today.
• The notice of appeal shall be served upon counsel for the respondents within seven days from the day of lodging it in the registry.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Act 1996 s.13(1)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.4
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.104
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.112
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules S.I. 26 of 1998

Cases cited (9)

• Executrix of the Estate of the late Christine Mary Namatovu Tebajjukira and Another v Noel Grace Shalita Stananzi (Civil Application No. 1 of 1988)
• Banyankole Kweterana Co-operative Union Ltd v John Katsiko (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1999)
• Management Committee Ruhaama Girls School v Dr Burora Kutuere (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1999)
• Haji Sekajja v Farida Sood (Civil Application No. 27 of 1993)
• Shanti Vs. Hindocha & ors [1973] EA. 207
• Bhatt Vs. Tejwant Singh [1962] EA 587
• Florence Nabatanzi v Naama Bansobedde (Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Emily Kinyera v Eria G. Musisha (Civil Application No. 133 of 1999)

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