Purity Somoine Meitamei v Salome Naanyu Leshan Letoluo & 2 others

The 3rd respondent argued there is no automatic right of appeal from the High Court when exercising original jurisdiction under the Law of Succession Act, and that no competent appeal therefore exists. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Wandi vs. Muchira, the Single Judge held that in the absence of any express statutory limitation, a High Court decision in a succession matter is appealable as of right, and any contrary position would be inconsistent with the Constitution's transformative vision of accessible justice.

The judgment was delivered on 18th July 2025 and the application was dated 3rd February 2026, a delay of about six months and sixteen days. The court held that whether delay is inordinate is not a matter of arithmetic and all surrounding circumstances must be considered. The eviction proceedings posed an immediate threat to the applicant's residence, making her urgency understandable, and the prompt notice of appeal demonstrated an intention to pursue the appellate process without delay.

The court found that the grant of extension affords the applicant the opportunity to ventilate her appeal while the respondents retain the full opportunity to oppose it on merit. The court invoked the observation that costs are a universal remedy which cures most ills in litigation, citing Waljee's (Uganda) Ltd vs. Ramji Punjabhai Bugerere Tea Estates Ltd. No countervailing prejudice was demonstrated by the respondents.