Lukyamuzi v Nantume (Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2009)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 110 · 2015 Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second appeal from a High Court appellate decision originating in the Chief Magistrate's Court

Decision

Appeal struck out as incompetent; the decision of the first appellate Judge stands

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

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 held that a second appeal lies only on questions of law under section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, and a second appellate court has no duty to re-evaluate evidence unless the first appellate court failed to do so. All four grounds raised questions of fact and law, rendering the appeal incompetent. The Court struck out the appeal. It further observed, obiter, that the first appellate Judge had properly re-evaluated the evidence in finding the deceased had fully refunded the purchase price, and found no reason to fault that decision had the appeal been competent. No order as to costs since the respondent did not appear.

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent and another, as administrators of the estate of the late Moses Male, in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Masaka, seeking recovery of shs. 2,100,000 or 0.5 acres being part of plot 25-27 Speke Road, Masaka. He claimed the deceased had sold him the land but later refused to transfer it or refund the purchase price. The Chief Magistrate found for the appellant and awarded shs. 1.6 million, having found that the deceased had part-refunded shs. 500,000 before his death. On appeal, the High Court found that the deceased had in fact fully refunded the purchase price, having paid shs. 2,500,000 by two cheques (one dated 27 June 1994 for shs. 2,000,000 and another dated 3 August 1994 for shs. 500,000), and allowed the appeal. The appellant, dissatisfied, brought a second appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

Whether the grounds of the second appeal raised questions of law as required by section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, or impermissibly raised questions of fact.
Whether the first appellate Judge properly re-evaluated the evidence in finding that the deceased had fully refunded the purchase price.

Orders

Appeal struck out as incompetent.
No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Limited to Questions of Law under Section 72 Civil Procedure Act

A second appeal to the Court of Appeal lies only on questions of law under section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act; grounds raising questions of fact, or mixed questions of law and fact, render the appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of Second Appellate Court to Re-evaluate Evidence

Unlike a first appellate court, a second appellate court has no duty to re-evaluate the evidence unless the first appellate court failed in its duty to do so.

Civil Procedure — Adjournment — Effect of Counsel's Letter and Non-appearance

A letter from counsel does not operate to adjourn a matter before the court; where counsel is unable to attend, arrangements must be made for another advocate to hold brief, and an unexplained absence permits the court to proceed in the absence of the party.

Legislation cited (2)

Civil Procedure Act s.72
Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 30(1)

Cases cited (1)

Henry Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)

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.