Wakilii

Karenzi George and Another v Muramuri Pidson and Mwesigwa Fred (Civil Appeal 20 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 201 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from the High Court (sitting as first appellate court) in a land dispute originating in the Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Appeal dismissed; decisions of the trial and first appellate courts 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

This was a second appeal arising from a land dispute decided in the Chief Magistrate's Court and upheld by the High Court as first appellate court. The Court held that on a second appeal under section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act it is precluded from questioning findings of fact where evidence supports them; an appeal lies only on points of law. The appellants' memorandum impermissibly challenged questions of fact. Their last-minute application to amend the memorandum and adduce further evidence, made on the morning of the hearing and four years after filing without any draft amendment, was dilatory, an afterthought and an abuse of court process. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The dispute concerned suit land in Mbarara between the estates of two deceased protagonists, now represented by their respective administrators. At trial in the Chief Magistrate's Court the respondents (then plaintiffs) claimed that in 1994 they allowed the appellants (then defendants) to use and occupy the land for one year and then vacate; the respondents held a leasehold title. The appellants claimed they owned the land, having acquired it in 1974, and alleged the title was fraudulently acquired. The trial court found for the respondents, ordered eviction of the appellants and awarded general damages. The High Court, sitting as first appellate court, upheld that decision. The appellants brought this second appeal, whose memorandum challenged the lower courts on both law and fact and, on the morning of the hearing, sought leave to amend the memorandum and adduce further evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether, on a second appeal, the Court of Appeal could entertain a challenge to the lower courts' findings of fact.
  2. Whether the appellants should be granted leave to amend their memorandum of appeal and adduce additional evidence at the second appeal stage.

Orders

  • This appeal stands dismissed.
  • The decisions of the first appellate and trial courts are upheld.
  • Costs of this appeal awarded to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction
On a second appeal under section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court of Appeal is precluded from questioning the findings of fact of the trial court where there was evidence to support them; a second appeal lies only on points of law.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Memorandum of Appeal — Dilatory Conduct
Leave to amend a memorandum of appeal will be refused where the application is dilatory and an afterthought, made on the morning of the hearing years after the appeal was filed and unsupported by any draft or proposed amendment.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of the Court — Additional Evidence on Second Appeal
The exercise of the court's inherent powers is a matter of judicial discretion exercised with regard to the circumstances of each case; an application to adduce additional evidence on a second appeal, where that opportunity had presented itself at trial and on first appeal, amounts to an abuse of court process contrary to Rule 2(2) of the Rules of the Court.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.72
  • Civil Procedure Act s.74
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.2(2)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.27
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.32(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • R. Mohamed All Hasham vs. R (1941) 8 E.A.C.A. 93
  • R. vs. Hassqn bin Said (1942) 9 E.A.C.A. 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.