[1998] UGCA 22

[1998] UGCA 22

The court found that the applicant and his counsel were absent when judgment was delivered and were not served with notice of the delivery date. The explanation that the applicant only learned of the judgment after the time for filing a notice of appeal had expired was accepted as a sufficient reason under Rule 4 of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] UGCA 22
Parties
Applicant: St. Kizito Youth Farm Ltd; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Application No. 58 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Leave to File Notice of Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Sufficient Reason, Court of Appeal Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Sufficient Reason Court of Appeal Rules

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

St. Kizito Youth Farm Ltd

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Leave to File Notice of Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient reason to warrant extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether absence of the applicant and his counsel at the delivery of judgment constitutes sufficient reason for delay.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the application was inordinate and disentitles the applicant to relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant and his counsel were absent when judgment was delivered and were not served with notice of the delivery date. The explanation that the applicant only learned of the judgment after the time for filing a notice of appeal had expired was accepted as a sufficient reason under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996. The delay of approximately six months was distinguished from the precedent in Rosette Kizito, where the delay was 18 months and the reason was mere forgetfulness. The court held that the circumstances justified extension of time, and the application was allowed with costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to file notice of appeal out of time.
  • The applicant shall file the notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of delivery of this ruling.