[2025] UGHC 362

[2025] UGHC 362

The court found that both notices of appeal filed by the Applicant were lodged well outside the statutory 14-day period prescribed by rule 76(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Directions. No application for extension of time was made to regularize the late filing. As a result, there was no competent notice of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] UGHC 362
Parties
Applicant: Nakitto Eva Kasule; Respondent: Painento Semalulu
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 381 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Bukirwa, J
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Notice of Appeal, Jurisdiction of High Court, Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Notice of Appeal Jurisdiction of High Court Extension of Time Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nakitto Eva Kasule

Applicant

Painento Semalulu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether there are sufficient grounds for a stay of execution of orders passed in High Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2008.
  2. 2 What remedies are available to the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both notices of appeal filed by the Applicant were lodged well outside the statutory 14-day period prescribed by rule 76(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Directions. No application for extension of time was made to regularize the late filing. As a result, there was no competent notice of appeal before the court, and the jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution was not invoked. The Applicant's argument regarding mistake of counsel was not entertained, as it was not properly brought before the court. Consequently, the application for stay of execution was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.