Wakilii

Livingstone Kayaga Kizito v Waligo Charles (Miscellaneous Application No. 80 of 2012.)

Court of Appeal · [2012] UGCA 38 · 2012 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal following the High Court's refusal to grant leave, arising from a ruling dismissing preliminary objections in H.C.C.S. No. 399 of 2010.
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; matter remitted to the High Court to recommence before another judge.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 an application for leave to appeal against a High Court ruling overruling the applicant's preliminary objections. Applying the principles in Sango Bay Estates and Degeya Trading Stores, the Court held that an applicant seeking leave must show that the intended appeal has reasonable chances of success or raises arguable grounds. On perusing the grounds, the Court found no merited ground worth the grant of leave and agreed with the trial judge that no serious questions of law or fact arose. The application was dismissed with costs and the matter ordered to recommence in the High Court, preferably before another judge.

Facts

In H.C.C.S. No. 399 of 2010, the respondent sued the applicant. At the scheduling conference, the applicant raised preliminary points of law contending that there was no cause of action, the suit was time-barred under section 176 of the Registration of Titles Act, the suit was res judicata, and the agreements relied upon were illegal. The learned trial judge, Justice Joseph Murangira, dismissed the preliminary objections with costs by ruling dated 6 January 2012. The applicant, having no automatic right of appeal, applied to the High Court for leave to appeal, which was refused on 12 April 2012. The applicant then filed a fresh application before the Court of Appeal seeking leave to appeal against the trial judge's ruling on the preliminary objections.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of leave to appeal against the learned trial judge's ruling dismissing his preliminary objections.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.
  • The case to be recommenced from where it stopped in the High Court before the preliminary objections were raised, preferably before another Judge.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Right of Appeal — Creature of Statute
The right to appeal is a creature of statute; where there is no right of appeal, a party must seek leave of court before appealing.
Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Principles Governing Grant
An applicant seeking leave to appeal must establish prima facie grounds of appeal that merit serious consideration, showing either that the intended appeal has reasonable chances of success or that there are arguable grounds, and that the applicant has not been guilty of dilatory conduct.
Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Rule 40 Court of Appeal Rules
Where the High Court refuses to grant a certificate that a question of great public or general importance arises, an application for leave to appeal may be lodged in the Court of Appeal within fourteen days on the ground that the intended appeal raises matters of public or general importance proper for review to ensure justice is done.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13/10 Rule 40(1)(a)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13/10 Rule 40(1)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13/10 Rule 40(2)(b)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 rules 1(2), (3) and (4)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 rules 2 and 4
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 28
  • Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.176
  • Stamps Act
  • Contract Act

Cases cited (4)

  • Charles Ssempebwa & 134 others V. Silver Springs Hotel Limited 2007 HCB vol. 1 page 65
  • Shah V. Attorney General (1971) EA 50
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd & Ors Vs Dresdner Bank A.G (1972) EA 17
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
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.