se ED 3. The court has a discretion to enlarge ‘Yhe timo for filing an appeal out of time, ‘even vhen the application is not made until after thé expixation of the time allowed provided HTS Sigpére in-good oases However an apptication fon ay L/S guok’ ealargenont of tind bas to be. made: by nutioe of ‘notidh aid be Méard in open court: ‘4, i counsol for the appellant: didnot make thé application for enlargement of ‘ine Py notice of motion-in-onen oourt, the applioation mat be rejected, ic oilt_and app: legislet 4. Givil Procedure Act Sedtions 00, 99, 1014 { 2. Givil Procedure Rules 0.7 r11(b) GG), 0.9 re13, 0648 Hae . 4 Cases cited: . e Sevame ve Paineto Bagandakwekyusa ‘& Another 1:0.6.8. W0: 153/67. { UNTN Beporta Las ve Customs; ZI9TOF Heke 660» 1 (usm. East African General Insurance Company Ltd. ; Tiigephan Ky Ftonde and 5 Others Wigh Court (Wtabgoba, Ags Js): November 30thy 1979 (civit Suit Now 1397 of 1975)BAGEN . v, UPAMDE S ORS. Lon] 0.0. ‘The six defendants borrowed a sum of nonoy from the plaintif? ‘company. .The loan was socured by a mortgage oxeouted by the defendants fas moziigapans According to the mortgage deed, the six defendants woro tho registered proprictore of that pioce of land as tonants in common in equal, shares; Under the terms of. clause 2(a) of the mortgage. feed if the deféndants, the nortgagers, failed to nay the instalmantc, stipulatod theroin on tine when they wore dueand payable, all the loan would become due and payable then. Theymortgegors défanited andushary plaintiff company cinstituted a summary gait against all the aix nortgagers. Only tho 4th defendant/apslicant was served with sunmons ‘to apply for leave. to appear and defend . Upon his failure to apply for Jeave to appoar and defend the suit in time counsel for the plaintitt conpany ap;Lied for a summary juugguent which was entered against the applicant. ‘the applicant applica to haye the ex parte judgnent and deorée set aside, on the grounds inter alia, that the sult wae ‘brought against all the Six dofendante in the capadity. they portrayed thensolves * to be in the mopigigy deed but the plaintift company sought to burden only one out of the six defendants with paymont of the total sun due and this vas unjust and inequitable, Counsel for the respondent objected 40 the application being heard on the grounds" inter alia, that Lt, was brought under the wrong rules of procedure 450, 0,9 #9 and O47 266 instoad of 0,33 P11 and 06GB P61 Cu WOLD: 1, _mthough the oase of Sarvan. Sin (1952) 19 Bich, 117 held thst asa general rule the roles under which an application was Browght should be stated in ‘the application, that sane case did not with-hold the Tlie sought for failure on the part of the applicant to cite tho relevant mlety 2, Jonants in connor in individed shares tut, ‘the Tenants have quite separate interests and The Tg that they TOE hive shares in a single proverty ‘WHGh bis not ved boon divided anong then. — 3. The dovoription of the tefendants which appeared in the mortgage deed that they wore “tenants in common” in equal shcres" fms not correct ae tha defendants vere nov tefante in Sonmon in the strict genae of that expression as each one's share war show as 1/f of the nortgaged Tana. 4. Tn the absence therefore of ay provision in tthe mortgage deed to the contrary each. of the defendants should have boon wideretood to contract to pay dack to the mortyagoes hia share of the loan with interest thereon, that Se 3/¢ fof-8L1 the woney duc oF to boosre’ dues 5. Tlaving decided to: join all the six defendants Yh this suit, the plaintitr compan Boouglt upon Steel? th of sumnoris en 5 each of 10 CAPR. 6, To burden only one out of the'six defendants with payment of a total sum of Sure 29,120/50 was, to say the lesst, unjust and incewitablesLivig] 1.0.3. Js This ground reliod on by the applicant in support of the present applivation was sufficient ground to amount to a “good causa” undet 0,33 re11. Applic: 4. Sarwan Singls vs Notkin (1952) 19 BACA 117. Books, referred to : 1, Mogars'y & lade On Real Property 2nd lan pps 395, 40% ~ a.0.8) The applicant sought leavé from the High Court to appeal against fa decision of Chief agistrate, ‘The applicant sued the respondents for Gncroachment on his land, he trial court gave judgment in his favour against the firet and second respondents holding that the land of the ‘thira respondents was not involved in the dispute, ‘the applicant appealed against the decision of the brial court to the Chicf Magistrate’: Court here his appeal was dismissed, Tho applicant then sought leave from thé Chief Magistrate to appeal to the Iiigh Court but leave was refused,” He then madd this application for jeave to appeal to the High Court, HELD: 1. ‘the effect of the 9,232:M.C.A 1970 which governs leave to appeal to the High Gourt is to prohibit a Court from granting leave 40 an’applicant to lodge a second appeal to the Iligh Court unless he sthisfics the court y either that the intended appeal involves a substantial question of lav, or that the decision against which the intends to appeal appears to have caused a misoarriage of justice. 2) A substantial question of law is involved whore the point raised is one of general principle } decided for “tha First Hme,or where the question ie one upon which further argunont and a decision of the superior colurt would be to tho public advatag