[1994] UGHC 3

[1994] UGHC 3

The court found that the applicant was prevented from filing the notice of appeal in time due to the dishonest actions of a clerk who pocketed the filing fees without the employer's knowledge. The court held that such conduct by a servant, unknown to the employer, constitutes sufficient reason for the delay. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1994] UGHC 3
Parties
Applicant: Arconsult Architect; Respondent: A. Bauman (U) Ltd.
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
17 May 1994
Case Number
Misc Appl. No. 42 of 1994
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Judicial Discretion

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arconsult Architect

Applicant

A. Bauman (U) Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient reason for failure to file the notice of appeal within the prescribed time period.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend the time for lodging a notice of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was prevented from filing the notice of appeal in time due to the dishonest actions of a clerk who pocketed the filing fees without the employer's knowledge. The court held that such conduct by a servant, unknown to the employer, constitutes sufficient reason for the delay. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, granting the extension sought. The respondent did not oppose the application, and the supporting affidavit was found credible. The court emphasized that the advocate should have reported the dishonest clerk to the police, but this did not affect the sufficiency of the reason advanced for the delay.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • The applicant is given 7 days within which to file the notice of appeal.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the respondent.