[1999] UGCA 17

[1999] UGCA 17

The court found that the applicants failed to apply for the certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court within the prescribed time due to the fault of their advocate, who did not make the application after being instructed to file the appeal. The court held that the failure of an advocate to act in time should not be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] UGCA 17
Parties
Appellant: Prof. G. S. Z. Ssenyonga; Appellant: Namuddu Christine; Respondent: Uganda
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Misc. Application No. 10 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Certificate to Appeal to the Supreme Court
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Certificate of Appeal, Advocate Default, Appellate Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Criminal Law Extension of Time Certificate of Appeal Advocate Default Appellate 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prof. G. S. Z. Ssenyonga

Appellant

Namuddu Christine

Appellant

Uganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Certificate to Appeal to the Supreme Court

  1. 1 Whether sufficient reason was shown to justify extension of time to apply for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court.
  2. 2 Whether the fault of the advocate in failing to apply for the certificate within time can be visited on the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to apply for the certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court within the prescribed time due to the fault of their advocate, who did not make the application after being instructed to file the appeal. The court held that the failure of an advocate to act in time should not be visited on the client, and such fault constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal. The court also noted that while the judgment was read by a Registrar, which prevented an informal application at the time of delivery, there was still time to make a formal application thereafter. The cumulative effect of the advocate's...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Applicants are to file their application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court within 7 days from the date of this ruling.
  • No order as to costs.