Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Malinga and 2 Others v Innonget (Civil Miscellaneous Application 19 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 595 (20 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to extend time for filing a cross-appeal, finding no proved instructions to prior counsel and no sufficient cause for delay.
Kansiime v Himalaya Traders Limited (Civil Application 60 of 2021) [2022] UGSC 19 (14 February 2022)
The Supreme Court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to file a cross appeal. The delay was attributed to the inadvertence and negligence of the applicant's lawyers, not to any dilatory conduct by the applicant himself. The court held that mistake of counsel, when the applicant has acted diligently, is a recognized ground for extension of time. The court also overruled the respondents' objection regarding consolidation, finding that the issues across the appeals were similar and consolidation was appropriate to avoid unnecessary duplication. The co…
Source excerpt
Guaranty Trust Bank (U) Limited v Dembe (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 125 of 2020) [2021] UGIC 113 (15 October 2021)
The Industrial Court refused to extend time for Guaranty Trust Bank to appeal a Labour Officer’s award, finding inordinate delay, lack of diligence, and no sufficient cause.
Mbabazi v Entebbe Handling Services (Miscellaneous Application None of None) [2019] UGIC 8 (15 March 2019)
The Industrial Court denied an application to file a cross-appeal out of time, finding no sufficient reason for delay and that the proposed issues could be addressed in the reply.
Uganda Telecom Limited v Tanzanite Corporation (Civil Application 91 of 2003) [2003] UGCA 17 (12 September 2003)
The court found that the applicant was not responsible for the delay, which was caused by counsel's inadvertent mistake. The discretion to enlarge time is unfettered and should be exercised to prevent injustice, especially where the party seeking extension was not at fault. The respondent will not suffer any injustice if time is enlarged, and substantive justice requires that parties are not driven from the judgment seat without being heard. The court therefore exercised its discretion to extend the time and validate the notice of cross-appeal filed out of time, awarding costs of the applicat…
Source excerpt
