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
Attorney General and another vs Okwi Richard (Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2019) [2023] UGHC 27 (11 January 2023)
The High Court refused leave to appeal out of time, finding the applicants had not shown sufficient cause and had delayed unreasonably after learning of judgment.
Wanyoto v The Electoral Commission and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2021) [2022] UGCA 169 (20 June 2022)
The Court of Appeal found that the applicant failed to file both the memorandum and record of appeal within the mandatory statutory timelines prescribed for election petition appeals. The reasons advanced for the delay, including alleged difficulties in obtaining certified copies of the judgment and proceedings, were not supported by sufficient documentary evidence or exceptional circumstances. The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme for election petitions requires strict compliance with timelines to ensure expeditious resolution, and that its jurisdiction to extend time is limited whe…
Source excerpt
Attorney General v Ntege Ida and 11 others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2021) [2021] UGIC 28 (28 May 2021)
The court found that although the applicant's explanation for the delay was not entirely satisfactory, the overriding consideration was the right to be heard as enshrined in Article 28 of the Constitution. The court held that denying the applicant the opportunity to file a defence would amount to shutting out the defence and causing injustice, especially since the applicant demonstrated an intention to defend the claim. The court exercised its discretion to allow the application, validated the late reply, and awarded taxed costs to the respondent due to the applicant's negligence.
Source excerpt
Amony v Madhvani Group Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2019) [2021] UGIC 3 (5 February 2021)
The Industrial Court of Uganda declined to extend time for an appeal, finding the applicant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay.
Sonko & 11 Others V Dick K. Banoba (Misc. Application No. 122 of 2018) [2019] UGCA 2018 (11 September 2019)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to extend time to file a memorandum of appeal, finding no sufficient cause and no lodged notice of appeal.
Akankwasa v Attorney General (HCT-00-CV-CS-0202-2013) [2016] UGHCCD 42 (15 June 2016)
High Court judgment in a formal proof suit by a public officer against the Attorney General. The court granted declarations and damages, but denied reinstatement and defamation.
Joseph Muluta v Sylvano Katama [1999] UGSC 4 (16 November 1999)
The Supreme Court of Uganda granted leave to file a fresh notice of appeal and appeal out of time, finding the delay was caused by former counsel’s omission.
Kanyomozi v Motor Mart (U) Ltd [1999] UGSC 6 (12 February 1999)
The Supreme Court found that, although the delay in bringing the application was inordinate and the explanations for the delay were unsatisfactory, the overriding consideration was that injustice would result if the appeal was not heard on its merits. The court accepted that the applicant should not be penalized for the honest mistake or oversight of his counsel, and that damages against the advocate would not be a sufficient remedy. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules to grant an extension of time, allowing the applicant to file for restoration of the a…
Source excerpt
Tumushabe And Another v M/s Anglo African Ltd and Another (H.C.C.S No. 14 of 1996) [1998] UGCA 58 (19 June 1998)
The Court of Appeal granted leave to file a civil appeal out of time, holding that delay caused by counsel and court processes could amount to sufficient reason.
Zamu & Another v Sulaiman (Civil Application 2 of 1992) [1992] UGSC 27 (21 March 1992)
The Supreme Court held that while the applicants' counsel was negligent in failing to copy the letter requesting the record of proceedings to the respondent and in failing to extract the decree in time, the applicants themselves, as laymen, relied on their counsel's assurances and were not shown to have been willfully dilatory or grossly negligent. The Court found that sufficient reason had been shown under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court to justify extension of time for filing the notice and record of appeal. The Court emphasized that error of counsel, though regrettable, should not…
Source excerpt
