Wakilii

Kasedde Mukasa George& Ors v Holiday Hotel Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 93 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 26 · 2020 Application Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against an interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal, and for a stay of proceedings in the pending appeal.
Decision
Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents

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 held that there is no statutory provision conferring a right of appeal to the Supreme Court from an original interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal made in a pending appeal. Appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute and cannot be conferred by the court's inherent powers under rule 2(2). Section 6(1) of the Judicature Act permits an appeal as of right only where the Court of Appeal confirms, varies or reverses a decision of the High Court, which had not occurred here. Granting leave does not confer jurisdiction. An application for leave to appeal such an order is therefore futile, and the application was incompetent and struck out with costs.

Facts

The applicants, administrators of an estate, had filed an application in the Court of Appeal (Civil Application No. 226 of 2018) seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the pending Civil Appeal No. 155 of 2017. That application was heard and dismissed on 21 March 2019. The applicants then sought leave to appeal that dismissal to the Supreme Court, together with a stay of proceedings in the pending appeal, contending that the additional evidence was relevant to showing the second respondent was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of fraud. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that no appeal lies to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal incidental to a pending appeal, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave where no right of appeal existed.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal made in a pending appeal.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal can grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against such an interlocutory order.
  3. Whether proceedings in the pending Court of Appeal appeal should be stayed pending the intended appeal.

Orders

  • The application is incompetent and is struck out with costs to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Appellate Jurisdiction — Interlocutory Orders of the Court of Appeal
No right of appeal lies to the Supreme Court from an original interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal made in a pending appeal, as such orders are incidental to the appeal and do not result from its final determination.
Appeals — Source of Appellate Jurisdiction — Statute
Appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute; there is no inherent appellate jurisdiction, and the inherent powers of the court under rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules cannot create a right of appeal where statute confers none.
Judicature Act s.6 — Scope of Right of Appeal to the Supreme Court
Section 6(1) of the Judicature Act confers a right of appeal to the Supreme Court only where the Court of Appeal confirms, varies or reverses a judgment or order of the High Court given in its original jurisdiction, and does not extend to original interlocutory orders issued by the Court of Appeal itself.
Leave to Appeal — Jurisdiction — Effect of Granting Leave
Granting leave to appeal does not confer jurisdiction; an application for leave to appeal an order from which no right of appeal lies is futile and incompetent.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.4
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.6(1)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.6(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda article 132(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions rule 30(1)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions rule 42
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions rule 43(1) and (2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 39
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 46

Cases cited (2)

  • Beatrice Kobusingye v Fiona and George Nyakaana (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50
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.