Uganda Case Law

Mironko v Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda (Application 15 of 2022)

Mironko v Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda (Application 15 of 2022) [2023] EACJ 5 (27 February 2023) (Appellate Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application 15 of 2022

Judge

Kayobera P, Mjasiri VP, M'lnoti JA, Mugeni JA

The Court found that the delay in filing the Record of Appeal was only six days and not inordinate. The Applicant's failure to serve the Respondent with the application for proceedings was due to acting in person and unfamiliarity with the Rules, which constituted sufficient reason for extension. The Court emphasized that its discretion under rule 5 is broad and should be exercised to do justice, not to punish procedural lapses where no prejudice is shown. The citing of the wrong rule by counsel did not affect the Court's jurisdiction, as the substantive right to seek extension was establishe…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Time
• Record Of Appeal Filing
• Procedural Lapse
• Judicial Discretion

Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v Musoni (Application No.10 of 2019)

Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v Musoni (Application No.10 of 2019) [2021] EACJ 6 (8 October 2021) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application No.10 of 2019

Judge

Masara PJ, Muhumuza J, Ngiye DPJ, Nyawello J, Wejuli J

The East African Court of Justice enlarged time for Uganda to file and serve its response, finding sufficient reason for the delay and validating the late response.

• Extension Of Time
• Procedural Lapse
• Court Discretion
• Application Of Rules
• Extension-of-time
• Civil-procedure

Managing Editor Mseto and Another v Attorney General, Republic of Tanzania (Application 3 of 2019; Application 4 of 2019)

Managing Editor Mseto and Another v Attorney General, Republic of Tanzania (Application 3 of 2019; Application 4 of 2019) [2020] EACJ 7 (2 June 2020) (Appellate Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application 3 of 2019 ; Application 4 of 2019

Judge

Kiryabwire JA, Mjasiri JA, Nkurunziza VP, Ringera JA, Ugirashebuja P

The Court found that the Respondent failed to provide sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The restructuring of the Attorney General's office, cited as the cause, occurred months before the judgment and did not prevent the timely filing of the Notice of Appeal, nor did it preclude the filing of the appeal itself. The Respondent demonstrated capacity to file documents during the relevant period, and no directive prohibited the Attorney General's office from filing the appeal. The application for extension of time was filed over a year after the Notice of Appeal, evidencing dil…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Time
• Notice Of Appeal Striking Out
• Freedom Of Expression
• Procedural Lapse
• Public Interest Litigation