[1999] UGCA 72
The court found that the applicant had instructed her lawyers within time and that the notice of appeal was lodged within the prescribed period. However, the lawyers failed to pursue the appeal concurrently with negotiations for an amicable settlement, resulting in the expiration of the time to file the record of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] UGCA 72
- Parties
- Appellant: Kezia Isingoma & Another; Respondent: Peter Asiimwe & Others
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Application No. 33 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- application granted
- Judges
- Okello, JA
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Land Dispute, Sufficient Cause
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kezia Isingoma & Another
Appellant
Peter Asiimwe & Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause for extension of time to file the notice of appeal.
- 2 Whether the error of counsel can be a ground for granting extension of time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had instructed her lawyers within time and that the notice of appeal was lodged within the prescribed period. However, the lawyers failed to pursue the appeal concurrently with negotiations for an amicable settlement, resulting in the expiration of the time to file the record of appeal. The court held that the failure was due to the fault of counsel and not the applicant. Citing established authorities, the court reiterated that the error of counsel should not be visited on the applicant and that such error can constitute sufficient cause for extension of time. The court was satisfied that the applicants were not guilty of any dilatory conduct and had...
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- Extension of time to file notice of appeal is granted.
- Costs awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
## THE REPTIBLIC OF TIGANDA IN THE COTIRT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KAMPALA
# COR{M: HON. MR. JTISTICE G. M. OKELLO, J. A.
i I
### CIVIL APPLICATION NO.33 OF I997.
#### BET\1'EEN
### KEZIA ISINGOMA & ANOR: : : : : : : : : : : :: : : :: : : : :: :: : : :APPELLANT
#### AND
# PETER ASIIMWE & OTHERS: : : : : : : : : : :: :: : : : : : :: : : :RESPONDENTS RULING OF G.]VI. OKELLO. J. A.
This application was brought under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, Directions, 1996 seeking extension of time within which to file Notice of Appeal. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Enock Rukidi, Counsel who was duly instructed to handle the matter.
This is a case of land dispute. When the High Court delivered its judgment at Fort Portal on2318194, the applicant was dissatisfied with it and instructed her lawyers to appeal against it. IM/S Hunter & Greig Advocates lodged Notice of Appeal on2918194. This was within time. Thereafter, they started negotiations with the opposite party with a view to a settlement out of court. In the course of the negotiations Mr. Jonathan Kateera who was handling the applicant's case died. Then the applicant instructed another firm I\4/S Kasinye, Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates, This firm continued with the negotiations on behalf of the applicant. When the negotiations proved futile,
the time within which to file the record of appeal had expired and the court system had also changed. Appeal from the High Court had to go to the Court of Appeal first. Hence this application.
t
The sole ground ofthe application is that the applicant was prevented from taking the necessary step within time due to the fault of her counsel who despite having been instructed in time failed to file the appeal in time. That this constituted sufficient cause.
The respondents opposed the application on the ground that the applicants have shown no sufficient cause to justify extension of tirne.
It is now established by numerous authorities that this court has discretion to extend time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules Directions, 1996, where sufficient cause is shown. The sufficient cause must relate to the inability to take the necessary step within the prescribed time. (See: Clouds I0 Ltd, Civil applicotion No. 35 of
ln the instant case, the applicant had instructed h&lawyers within time to appeal against the decree of the lower court. Notice of Appeal was infact lodged within time but the lawyers failed to pursue the appeal issue side by side with the negotiations for a possible amicable settlement. I agree with Counsel for the applicant that it was the fault of the applicant's lawyers not to have filed the record of appeal in course of the negotiations because they ought to have known that time was running against them. It has been repeatedly held by Supreme Court and the defunct Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa that the applicant's Counsel's error was not necessarily a bar
to his obtaining an extension of time (See Essaji and others Vs Solanki [1968] EA 218; Ben Kiwanuka Vs Haji Nurdin Matovu, Civil application No. 17 of 1990 (SC) unreported). The error of Counsel in this case therefore cannot be visited on the applicant. I find that the applicants were not guilty of any dilatory conduct. In my view, they have shown sufficient cause to justify the extension of time. The application is granted with costs in favour of the applicant.
Dated at Kampala this $4$ th day of $2$ un $2$ 1999.
$\mathcal{C}$ G. M. OKELLO **JUSTICE OF APPEAL.**