Wakilii

Zamu & Another v Sulaiman (Civil Application 2 of 1992)

Supreme Court · [1992] UGSC 27 · 1992 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Supreme Court for leave to file a notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time
Decision
Application granted; time for filing the notice and record of appeal extended

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 2 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 applicants sought leave to file their notice and record of appeal out of time after their earlier appeal was struck out, their former counsel having failed to copy the respondent on the request for proceedings, to extract the decree timeously, and having given false assurances that the appeal was duly filed. The single Justice held that an error of omission by counsel is no longer fatal to an application under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, and that the applicants, being laymen who relied on those false assurances, had not been guilty of such delay as to forfeit adjudication of their intended appeal on its merits. Sufficient reason having been shown, time was extended.

Outcome

Application granted; time for filing the notice and record of appeal extended

Facts

Judgment in High Court Civil Suit No. 558 of 1989 was delivered against the applicants on 21 December 1990 in favour of the respondent. A notice of appeal was filed on 2 January 1991, but under Rule 81(1) the record of appeal had to be filed within 60 days, by 2 March 1991. The applicants' counsel failed to copy the respondent on the letter requesting the record of proceedings and did not extract the decree, which the respondent's counsel eventually extracted on 5 June 1991. A memorandum of appeal was filed in May 1991 and the record in July 1991, and the court struck out the notice and memorandum of appeal in January 1992. The second applicant had instructed the firm shortly after judgment and received repeated, but false, assurances that all appeal papers had been filed. The applicants then applied for an extension of time, contending they should not suffer for their former counsel's errors.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient reason had been shown under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal and the record of appeal out of time.
  2. Whether the applicants' own conduct was so dilatory as to disentitle them from relief notwithstanding the negligence of their former counsel.

Orders

  • Time for filing the notice of appeal extended to 3rd April, 1992.
  • Time for filing the record of appeal extended to 30 days thereafter.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Effect of Counsel's Error
An error of omission by counsel is no longer to be regarded as fatal to an application to extend time under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Diligence of Lay Litigant
Lay applicants who rely on the false and deceptive assurances of negligent counsel that their appeal has been duly filed are not thereby guilty of such dilatory conduct as to be deprived of the right to have their intended appeal adjudicated on its merits.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason — Relevant Considerations
In determining whether sufficient reason has been shown to extend time, the court considers all the circumstances, including the inadvertence of counsel and the likelihood of success of the intended appeal, while balancing the need for stability and certainty for the successful litigant.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (10)

  • Executrix of the Estate of the late Christine Mary Namatovu Tebajjukira and Another v Noel G. Shalita (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1988)
  • Attorney General v Orient Construction Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1990)
  • Shanti v Handocha and Others (1973) E.A. 207
  • Gatti v Shoosmith (1939) 3 All E.R. 916
  • Mary Kyamulabi v Nirondomu (1980) H.C.B. 11
  • Essagi v Solanki (1968) E.A. 218
  • Ben Kiwanuka v Haji Nurdin Matovu (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1990)
  • Mugo v Wanjiru (1970) E.A. 484
  • Asadi Woke v Livingstone
  • Bahitara Transport Bus Co. Ltd v Biribonwa (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1978)

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Zamu & Another v Sulaiman (Civil Application 2 of 1992) [1992] UGSC 27 (21 March 1992)
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.