Share
Adura Omuto Ltd v Henry Nyombi (Civil Application No. 5 of 1999) [1999] UGCA 66 (1 June 1999)
- Citation
- [1999] UGCA 66
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- kato, JA
- Case number
- Civil Application No. 5 of 1999
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- kato, JA
- Case number
- Civil Application No. 5 of 1999
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the applicant was not to blame for the delay in filing the notice of appeal, as the delay was solely due to the negligence of its counsel. The court recognized that, according to precedent, a party should not be punished for the mistakes or negligence of its counsel, and that each case must be considered on its own merits. In this case, the applicant had acted diligently by instructing counsel promptly, and the failure to file on time was entirely attributable to counsel's conduct. The court therefore found sufficient reason to grant the extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, allowing the applicant to file the notice of appeal out of time. However, the court ordered that the applicant's counsel, being wholly responsible for the delay, should personally pay the costs of the application to the respondent.
Court disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The applicant is permitted to file its notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
- The applicant's counsel is to pay the costs of this application to the respondent from his own resources.
02
Material facts
Parties
Adura Omuto Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Mr. George EmesuHenry Nyombi
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Kiwuuwa03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has shown sufficient reason for extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
- 02
Whether counsel's negligence constitutes sufficient reason under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the delay in filing the notice of appeal was solely due to the negligence of its counsel, who misplaced the necessary papers and failed to sign and file them on time. The applicant had promptly instructed counsel after judgment, and the delay was not attributable to the applicant itself. It would be unfair to deny the applicant an extension of time due to its counsel's error.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposed the application, contending that no sufficient ground had been shown for the failure to file the notice of appeal within the prescribed time. The respondent argued that the applicant's counsel's failure to sign and file the papers, and the misplacement of those papers, amounted to unethical conduct and did not constitute sufficient reason for extension.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The court may, for sufficient reason, extend the time limited by the Rules or by any decision of the Court for the doing of any act authorized or required by the Rules.
- 02
Shabir Din v Ram Parkash Anand [1955] 22 EACA 48 at page 51
Mistake or misunderstanding of a party's legal advisers, even if negligent, may be accepted as a proper ground for granting relief, depending on the facts of the case.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the applicant was not to blame for the delay in filing the notice of appeal, as the delay was solely due to the negligence of its counsel. The court recognized that, according to precedent, a party should not be punished for the mistakes or negligence of its counsel, and that each case must be considered on its own merits. In this case, the applicant had acted diligently by instructing counsel promptly, and the failure to file on time was entirely attributable to counsel's conduct. The court therefore found sufficient reason to grant the extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, allowing the applicant to file the notice of appeal out of time. However, the court ordered that the applicant's counsel, being wholly responsible for the delay, should personally pay the costs of the application to the respondent.
Obiter and limits
- The phrase 'sufficient reason' is not defined in the rules and is left to the discretion of the court to determine based on the circumstances of each case.
- A party to litigation should not be punished for the negligence of his counsel, but whether relief is granted depends on the facts of the particular case.
Court disposition
application allowed
- The applicant is permitted to file its notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
- The applicant's counsel is to pay the costs of this application to the respondent from his own resources.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5 OF I999
ADURA OMUTO LTD
APPLICANT
VERSUS
HENRY NYOMBI RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON. JUSTICE C. M. KATO, J. A. (Single Judge)
RULING
o
o
This is an application for extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal.. The application was filed under rule 4 of the Rules of this court. It was lodged by a notice of motion dated 512199 and it is supported by an affidavit swom by Mr. George Emesu on 512199.
Although the notice of motion gives 3 grounds upon which this application was founded there is in fact only one substantial ground namely: that the applicant's delay to file the notice of appeal on time was due to the negligence of its counsel.
Mr. Emesu who argued the application on behalf of the applicant submitted that the delay was not attributable to the applicant who promptly instructed its counsel to file the notice of appeal irnmediately after the judgment was delivered. According to him he prepared the necessary papers on time but went upcountry before signing them. When he returned from upcountry on 23-12-98 time within which to file the notice ofappeal had expired and the papers had been misplaced in his chambers. The papers were not recovered until 3-2-99. It was Mr. Emesu's contention that the applicant was diligent and it would be unfair to deny it enlargement of time.
a
On his part, Mr. Kiwuuwa who appeared for the respondent strongly opposed the application. He submitted that no sufficient ground had been shown as to why the applicant had not filed the notice ofappeal within prescribed time. He contended that failure by applicant's counsel to sign and file papers on time and misplacement of the papers was unethical behaviour on the part ofthe counsel.
Rule 4 under which this application was brought reads as follows:
"4 . The court may, for sufficient reason, extend the time limited by these Rules or by any decision of the Court or of the High Court for the doing of any act authorised or required by these Rules, whether before or after the expiration of that time and whether before or after the doing of the act, and any reference in these Rules to any such time shall be construed as a reference to the time as so extended."
The phrase "sufficient reason" is not defined in the rules. The legislators in their wisdom left it to the discretion of the court to decide as to what amounts to "sufficient reason". In the instant case the matter to be considered concerns the question of whether counsel's negligence can be regarded as "sufficient reason" within the meaning of rule 4 of the Rules of this court.
According to Mr. Emesu's affidavit swom in support of this application and his submission, there is no doubt that the delay in filing the notice of appeal on time was due to the counsel's negligence. The applicant was not to blame for the mess. There are decisions of this court and the Suprerne Court suggesting that a pafty to litigation should not be punished for negligence of his counsel and that each case has to be considered on its own merits. In the case of Shabir Din v Ram Parkash Anand il955] 22 EACA 48 at pase 5l the Couft of Appeal for Eastern Africa had this to say on the matter:
o
o
In particular, mistake or misunderstanding of the appellant's legal advisers, even though negligent, may be accepted as a proper ground for granting a relief, but whether it will so be accepted must depend on the facts of the particular case."
o
Since the applicant was in no way to blame for the wrongful acts or omissions of its counsel, I find this a proper case to pennit the applicant to file its notice of appeal out of time. The application is accordingly allowed. The applicant is to file its notice of appeal within l4 days from the date of the delivery of this ruling. As the applicant's counsel was wholly responsible for this mess, due to his own negligence, he is to pay the costs ofthis application to the respondent from his (counsel's) own resources.
+ TL JUr', Dated at Karnpala -e- this Day of <sup>19991</sup>
o
r C. M. KATO JUSTICE OF APPEAL
o o
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.