Wakilii

Hanns Besigye v Charles Ndyahikayo’s Administrators (Civil Appeal No. 0007 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 343 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court first-appeal decision in a land ownership dispute originating in the Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Second appeal dismissed with costs; decision and orders of the first appellate court upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 appellant brought a second appeal challenging concurrent findings that disputed unregistered land belonged to the deceased respondent. The Court of Appeal held that its jurisdiction in second appeals is restricted by section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to matters of law, and that grounds raising findings of fact or mixed law and fact are wrong in law. Ground one was also too general and offended Rule 86(1). Because the first appellate court had thoroughly re-evaluated the evidence and the concurrent findings of fact were supported by evidence, the Court was precluded from interfering. The appeal was dismissed with costs and the decision of the first appellate court upheld.

Facts

The appellant claimed ownership of an unregistered piece of land at Nyakatare, Kanungu Town Council, asserting that he had purchased it from his uncle Bakamuhata John (PW1) on 30 October 1998 and that the deceased, Charles Ndyahikayo (also his uncle), had ratified the sale. He sued the deceased in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Rukungiri seeking a declaration of ownership and an injunction restraining the deceased from using or claiming the land. The deceased denied the claim, contending that the suit land belonged to him and was distinct from the land the appellant had bought from PW1. The Chief Magistrate found no trespass, held the land belonged to the deceased, and dismissed the suit with costs. The High Court at Kabale, on first appeal, upheld that decision and confirmed the deceased's ownership. During the pendency of the second appeal the deceased died, and his administrators, his widow Tigeita Shallon and son Atuheire Raymond, were substituted as respondents.

Issues

  1. Whether ground one of the appeal, alleging a mere failure to re-evaluate the evidence, was too general and offended Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the grounds of appeal, raising matters of fact or mixed law and fact, fell outside the Court's second-appeal jurisdiction under section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal, as a second appellate court, could interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the trial and first appellate courts.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The decision and orders of the first Appellate Court are hereby upheld.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Jurisdiction restricted to matters of law
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in a second appeal in a civil cause is restricted by section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to matters of law, and grounds of appeal that are not of law but raise findings of fact or mixed law and fact are wrong in law and liable to be struck out, save in exceptional circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Specificity of grounds under Rule 86(1)
A ground of appeal that merely alleges a failure to evaluate or re-evaluate the evidence, without specifying the particular error and the manner in which it was wrongly decided, is too general, offends Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal, and is liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Concurrent findings of fact
A second appellate court is precluded from questioning concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and first appellate court where there is evidence to support them, even if it considers it possible or probable that it would not have reached the same conclusion; it may interfere only where there was no evidence to support the finding, that being a question of law.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.72(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 86(1)

Cases cited (9)

  • Celtel Uganda Limited v Karungi Susan (Civil Appeal No. 0073 of 2013)
  • Ranchobhai Shivabhai Patel Ltd and Another v Henry Wambuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2017)
  • Banco Arab Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Elizabeth Nalumansi Wamala v Jolly Kasande and Others [2017] UGSC 21
  • Mubingwa Zepher v Thembo David Kabau (Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2019)
  • Mitwalo Magyengo v Medadi Mutyaba (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1996)
  • Maina v Mugiria [1983] KLR 78
  • Kifumunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • R v Hassan bin Said (1942) 9 EACA 62
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.