Wakilii

Celtel Uganda Limited t a Zain Uganda v Karungi (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2021] UGCA 93 · 2021 Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from the High Court (sitting on appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court), challenged by preliminary objection
Decision
Appeal struck out as incompetent; decision of the first appellate court upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 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 upheld the respondent's preliminary objection and struck out the entire appeal as incompetent. Grounds 2 to 5 were grounds of mixed law and fact and, on a second civil appeal, sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act permit only points of law; the appellant had been given but did not use the opportunity to amend them into pure law grounds. Ground 1, alleging failure to evaluate evidence, was too general and did not specify the points alleged to have been wrongly decided, contravening the mandatory requirement of Rule 86(1) of the Court's Rules. The Court upheld the decision of the first appellate court and awarded costs to the respondent.

Facts

The appellant was a telecom service provider and the respondent its customer. In 2009 the appellant issued a printout of the respondent's mobile telephone call activity (December 2008 to March 2009) to a third party, purportedly on the authority of a court order. The respondent sued in the Chief Magistrate's Court alleging breach of confidence, trust and privacy, contending the court order was unauthentic and that her then husband had used the printout to evict her on suspicion of an extra-marital affair, causing the breakdown of her marriage. The trial Chief Magistrate found the order unauthentic, that the appellant had been negligent in verifying it, and awarded special damages of UGX 7,000,000, general damages of UGX 3,000,000 and punitive damages of UGX 1,000,000 with interest. On first appeal the High Court substantially upheld the decision but set aside the punitive damages award. The appellant brought a second appeal to the Court of Appeal, which the respondent met with a preliminary objection challenging the competence of all grounds.

Issues

  1. Whether ground 1 of the appeal complied with Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal requiring grounds to specify the points alleged to have been wrongly decided.
  2. Whether grounds 2 to 5, being grounds of mixed law and fact, were competent on a second appeal under sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Ground 1 of the appeal struck out for contravening Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal.
  • Grounds 2, 3, 4 and 5 struck out as wrong in law for raising matters of mixed law and fact.
  • The whole appeal rendered incompetent and struck out.
  • The decision of the first appellate court upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Limitation to Points of Law
On a second civil appeal to the Court of Appeal, sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act permit appeal only on grounds of law; grounds of fact or of mixed law and fact are incompetent and are liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Distinction Between Points of Law and Mixed Law and Fact
A point of law arises where a court got the relevant law wrong or applied it wrongly; where the issue is whether the facts satisfy the legal test, a question of mixed law and fact arises and cannot ground a second appeal.
Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Specificity of Grounds
Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal mandatorily requires each ground of appeal to specify concisely the points alleged to have been wrongly decided; a general ground merely alleging failure to evaluate evidence, without identifying the specific evidence or wrong decision, is incompetent and must be struck out.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71 s.72(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71 s.74
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.86(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.82(1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Ranchobhai Shivabhai Patel Ltd and Another v Wambuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017)
  • Lubanga Jamada v Dr. Ddumba Edward (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011)
  • Lubanga Jamada v Dr. Ddumba Edward [2016] UGCA 11
  • Kulabiraawo v Nalubega (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2002)
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.