Wakilii

Zimu Construction Company Limited v Excel Insurance Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGIAT 5 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time against a decision of the Insurance Regulatory Authority
Decision
Application for leave to 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 Tribunal dismissed the application for leave to appeal out of time. The applicant's reason for delay—organising a memorial service for a deceased co-director—was found insufficient because the death occurred more than a year before the complaint was filed and over three years before the IRA decision. The delay was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal held that time limits must be observed and that Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution is not a panacea for all ills where sufficient cause is not shown.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed

Facts

The applicant filed a complaint before the Insurance Regulatory Authority on 26 May 2022. The IRA rendered its decision on 6 January 2023. The applicant sought leave to appeal out of time, claiming it was prevented from instructing advocates because one co-director had died and the surviving co-director (the deponent) was undergoing mental and psychological trauma. The application was filed on 19 May 2023, almost five months after the IRA decision. The co-director had died more than a year before the complaint was filed and over three years before the IRA decision. The respondent did not file any reply or appear at the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the time prescribed by law.
  2. Whether the appeal raises good and plausible grounds with high chances of success.
  3. Whether it is in the interest of justice that leave to appeal out of time should be granted.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Sufficient Cause — Requirement to Show Material Preventing Timely Filing
An applicant seeking enlargement of time to file an appeal must satisfy the tribunal by placing material before it showing sufficient cause for the delay. The reason must relate to the inability or failure to take a particular step within the prescribed time. A remote event that occurred long before the relevant period does not constitute sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Factors to be Considered
In determining whether to grant an extension of time, a tribunal must consider: (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the possibility or chances of success; and (iv) the degree of prejudice to the other party. Once a delay is not accounted for, it does not matter the length of the delay—there must always be an explanation for the period of delay.
Constitutional Law — Article 126(2)(e) — Substantive Justice — Not a Panacea for All Ills
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which requires courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, is not a panacea for all ills. Where timelines are prescribed by statute to ensure expeditious disposal of disputes, a tribunal is not justified in invoking Article 126(2)(e) to allow applications that do not disclose sufficient cause for delay.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Muzamiru v Tarapke and 6 Others (HMA No. 24 of 2013)
  • Rashida Abdul Karim Hanari & Another v Suleiman Adris (HMA No. 9 of 2017)
  • Fitzpatrick v Batger & Co Ltd [1967] 2 All ER 657
  • Shanti v Hindocha and Others [1973] EA 207
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
  • Tiberio Okeny and Another v Attorney General and Two Others (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)
  • Mulindwa v Kisubika (SCCA No. 12 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Zimu Construction Company Limited v Excel Insurance Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2023) [2023] UGIAT 5 (23 June 2023)
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.