Wakilii

Niwagaba v Law Development Centre (Ciivil Application No. 18 of 2006)

Court of Appeal · [2006] UGCA 48 · 2006 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out a notice of appeal and appeal against High Court judicial review orders as incompetent
Decision
Application to strike out the notice of appeal and appeal dismissed with costs; appeal allowed to proceed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to strike out the respondent's notice of appeal and appeal. It held that appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute, but a right of appeal need not be created by the law giving rise to the specific relief. Section 36 of the Judicature Act empowers the High Court to issue prerogative orders, and Sections 10 of the Judicature Act and 66 of the Civil Procedure Act confer on the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to hear appeals from such decisions. Orders made by the High Court under statutory provisions are appealable as of right unless expressly excluded. Failure to seek leave did not render the appeal incompetent because the underlying matter was brought by originating summons and finally settled the parties' rights.

Facts

The applicant, a law graduate of the Uganda Pentecostal University, applied to the Law Development Centre for admission to the Bar Course. The respondent denied him and other applicants from that university on the ground that its Bachelor of Laws programme had not been accredited by the Law Council through its Committee for Legal Education and Training under the Advocates' Act and Rules. The applicant sought judicial review by Originating Motion in Civil Application No. 589 of 2005, seeking certiorari, mandamus and a declaration. The trial Judge allowed the application. The respondent filed a notice of appeal and appeal (Civil Application No. 3 of 2006). The applicant then brought the present application to strike out that notice of appeal and appeal as incompetent, contending there is no right of appeal from prerogative orders and that no leave to appeal had been obtained.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a law that creates a right of appeal from decisions of the High Court to the Court of Appeal against prerogative orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.
  2. Whether the respondent's failure to seek leave to appeal rendered the appeal incompetent.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Appellate Jurisdiction as a Creature of Statute
Appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute, but a right of appeal does not have to be created by the same law which gives rise to the specific action or relief.
Judicial Review — Prerogative Orders — Right of Appeal
Where the High Court makes an order on a matter brought to it under a statutory provision rather than the Civil Procedure Act or Rules, that order is appealable to the Court of Appeal as of right unless the appeal is specifically excluded by special legislation; decisions made under Section 36 of the Judicature Act are therefore appealable by virtue of Section 10 of the Judicature Act and Section 66 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Final Determination by Originating Summons
Failure to seek leave to appeal does not render an appeal incompetent where the underlying matter was brought by originating summons and the trial judge finally settled all the rights between the parties.
Judicial Review — Certiorari — Remission to Decision-Maker
Under rule 10(4) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules, where the High Court quashes a decision by certiorari it may, in addition, remit the matter to the lower court, tribunal or authority with a direction to reconsider it in accordance with the High Court's findings.
Judicial Review — Nature and Purpose
Judicial review is a supervisory process concerned with the manner in which a decision was made rather than its merits; its purpose is to ensure the individual receives fair treatment by the authority, not to substitute the court's view for that of the authority on a matter the authority is empowered to decide.

Legislation cited (21)

  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.10
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.34
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.35
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.36(2)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.36(3)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.42
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.66
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 65-3 Order 40 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 65-3 Order 40 rule 2
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules SI No. 75 of 2003 Order 42A rule 2
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules SI No. 75 of 2003 Order 42A rule 4(3)
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules SI No. 75 of 2003 Order 42A rule 10(4)
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules SI No. 75 of 2003 Order 42A rule 12
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 rule 42(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 rule 81
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 rule 82(1)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.67(3)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 86(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 134(2)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 140(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 140(2)

Cases cited (10)

  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50
  • Baku R. Obudra and Another v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 1 of 2005)
  • Bander v Bander [1986] 2 All ER 918
  • Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141
  • Hilborne v Law Society of Singapore [1978] 2 All ER 757
  • Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distributors (a firm) and Others [2000] 2 All ER 1
  • Inspector General of Government v Orochi [2001] EA 75
  • Joseph Bayego v The Chief Registrar of Titles (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1994)
  • Makula International Ltd v Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
  • The Environment Action Network Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2006)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.