[2020] UGSC 36

[2020] UGSC 36

The Supreme Court found that the respondent failed to take essential steps to institute her appeal within the prescribed time, as required by the Supreme Court Rules. The respondent did not file a memorandum of appeal, pay the necessary fees, or apply for an extension of time for approximately four years after being notified that the certified record of proceedings was ready. The court held that the respondent's reliance on her former counsel's negligence and the lack of an endorsed decree did not constitute sufficient cause, especially in the absence of evidence of diligence or prompt action to rectify the delay. The court emphasized that the burden to prove sufficient cause lies with...

Citation
[2020] UGSC 36
Parties
Applicant: Tebajanga Tony & Others; Respondent: Gukina Sarah
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
5 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
Mike Chibita, JSC, Kisaakye, JSC, Tibatemwa, JSC, Opio-Aweri, JSC
Legal Topics
Appeals, Notice of Appeal, Extension of Time, Failure to Prosecute, Diligence of Litigants
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeals Notice of Appeal Extension of Time Failure to Prosecute Diligence of Litigants

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tebajanga Tony & Others

Applicant

Gukina Sarah

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to take essential steps within the prescribed time.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in instituting the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the respondent failed to take essential steps to institute her appeal within the prescribed time, as required by the Supreme Court Rules. The respondent did not file a memorandum of appeal, pay the necessary fees, or apply for an extension of time for approximately four years after being notified that the certified record of proceedings was ready. The court held that the respondent's reliance on her former counsel's negligence and the lack of an endorsed decree did not constitute sufficient cause, especially in the absence of evidence of diligence or prompt action to rectify the delay. The court emphasized that the burden to prove sufficient cause lies with...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The notice of appeal lodged by the respondent on 25th June, 2015 is struck out.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the applicants.