[2004] UGSC 25

[2004] UGSC 25

The Supreme Court held that a single judge of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and discretion to hear and determine an application for extension of time, even where there is a pending application to strike out the appeal before a full bench. The existence of a pending application to strike out the appeal does not bar the hearing of an application for extension of time, nor does it divest the court of its jurisdiction. The single judge erred in dismissing the application as premature, superfluous, and incompetent. The proper course would have been either to adjourn the application pending the outcome of the application to strike out the appeal or to decide the application for extension...

Citation
[2004] UGSC 25
Parties
Applicant: Godfrey Magezi; Applicant: Brian Mbazira; Respondent: Sudhri Ruparellia
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
4 August 2004
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Reference From Single Judge's Ruling on Extension of Time
Outcome
reference allowed
Judges
Oder, JSC, Mulenga, JSC
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appellate Jurisdiction, Procedural Irregularities
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appellate Jurisdiction Procedural Irregularities

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godfrey Magezi

Applicant

Brian Mbazira

Applicant

Sudhri Ruparellia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Reference From Single Judge's Ruling on Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a single judge of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for extension of time when there is a pending application to strike out the appeal before a full bench.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the application for extension of time by the single judge was proper in law and fact.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that a single judge of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and discretion to hear and determine an application for extension of time, even where there is a pending application to strike out the appeal before a full bench. The existence of a pending application to strike out the appeal does not bar the hearing of an application for extension of time, nor does it divest the court of its jurisdiction. The single judge erred in dismissing the application as premature, superfluous, and incompetent. The proper course would have been either to adjourn the application pending the outcome of the application to strike out the appeal or to decide the application for extension...

Court Disposition

reference allowed

Orders

  • The reference is allowed with costs to the applicants.
  • The order by the single judge dismissing the application is set aside.