Lwanga v Nambi (Miscellaneous Application No. 337 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2017] UGCA 172 · 2017 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law of great public or general importance, arising from Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2013

Decision

Application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court dismissed with costs

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 dismissed an application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court. None of the four questions posed amounted to a question of law of great public or general importance. The first and third questions sought only to reverse concurrent findings of fact. The illegality argument concerning the Uganda Land Commission's grant of a lease over Kabaka's land had not been pleaded, was raised without leave, and could not be litigated without the necessary parties (notably the Land Commission and the Kabaka), who were not before the court. The court held it had discretion to decline to consider a new point of law not raised in compliance with Rule 66(2). The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondent bought the disputed land from Dr Samula, who had purchased it from Mr Musoke, the applicant's father. Dr Samula applied in 1992 and obtained a lease over the land from the Uganda Land Commission, and a certificate of title was issued in 1993. The title was subsequently transferred to the respondent. The applicant claimed to be a customary tenant on the land. The trial court gave judgment to the applicant, but this was reversed by the High Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal on second appeal, which found the respondent held an unimpeachable title. The applicant then sought a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that several questions of law of great public or general importance arose, including whether the Uganda Land Commission could lawfully grant a lease over land said to belong to the Kabaka. That illegality point had been raised by counsel only in written submissions before the Court of Appeal, without leave, and had not formed a ground of appeal.

Issues

Whether acquisition of a legal interest in land extinguishes an existing equitable interest without proof of compensation or purchase of that equitable interest, so as to raise a question of great public or general importance.
Whether the Uganda Land Commission could lawfully grant leases over Kabaka's land returned under the Traditional Rulers (Restitution of Assets and Properties) Act, and whether this raises a question of great public or general importance.
Whether an erroneous finding not based on the evidence on record raises a question of great public or general importance.
Whether the Court of Appeal's failure to address a point of law raised in submissions, without leave, raises a question of great public or general importance.
Whether the applicant was entitled to a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 39(1) of the Supreme Court Rules.

Orders

This application is dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Certificate to Appeal — Question of Law of Great Public or General Importance

A question that seeks only to reverse concurrent findings of fact made by the lower courts does not constitute a question of law of great public or general importance and will not justify the grant of a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Civil Procedure — New Point of Law on Appeal — Requirement of Leave

Where an appellant seeks to raise a new point of law not pleaded or argued before the lower courts, the appellate court has discretion whether to entertain it; an applicant who fails to apply for leave to add it as a ground of appeal, and where the parties whose conduct is impugned are not before the court, cannot fault the court for declining to consider the point.

Land & Property — Illegality of Grant — Necessary Parties to Litigate

An allegation that the Uganda Land Commission unlawfully granted a lease over land cannot be effectively litigated where the Commission and other necessary parties are not before the court, and such a question must be tested in fresh litigation with the proper parties joined.

Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Compliance with Rule 66(2)

On a third appeal, the matters of law of great public or general importance alleged to have been wrongly decided must be set out concisely in the memorandum of appeal in compliance with Rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules; mere assertion of an illegality in submissions does not satisfy this requirement.

Legislation cited (3)

Supreme Court Rules r.39(1)
Court of Appeal Rules r.66(2)
Traditional Rulers (Restitution of Assets and Properties) Act cap 247

Cases cited (2)

Charles Lwanga Masengere v God Kabagambe and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 125 of 2009)
Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Anor [1982] HCB 11

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.