Wakilii

Jalia Naiga v Issa Ssekabira (Civil Appeal No. 195 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 239 · 2025 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from the High Court (sitting on first appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court), heard together with an application for extension of time and validation of the appeal
Decision
Appeal allowed; lower court decisions set aside and the suit remitted to the Chief Magistrate's Court for retrial before another Magistrate

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 Court allowed the appeal. On a second appeal the Court of Appeal is confined to points of law under section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, so three grounds raising mixed law and fact were struck out. On the surviving ground, the Court held that under Order 6 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules the filing of a Written Statement of Defence is not mandatory in a Magistrate's Court, and striking out a defendant's WSD does not divest the defendant of locus standi to participate in the trial. Locking the appellant out breached the non-derogable right to a fair hearing under Articles 28 and 44(c) of the Constitution, rendering the proceedings null. The suit was remitted for retrial.

Facts

The dispute concerned unregistered land, plots 9 and 16 Ssempira Road, Kaberebe Town Council, Isingiro District. The respondent claimed to have bought the land from the appellant's brother, Swaib Matovu, and his wife for value. The appellant, said to have been the caretaker, refused to vacate and instead claimed ownership. The respondent sued in the Chief Magistrate's Court for eviction, general damages, a permanent injunction and a declaration of ownership. The appellant filed a Written Statement of Defence, but on the respondent's application the Chief Magistrate struck it out as an evasive general denial amounting to no defence, refused leave to amend, and ordered the suit to proceed ex parte on the basis that there was no defence on record. Judgment was entered for the respondent. The High Court, on first appeal, upheld the Chief Magistrate, holding that once the WSD was struck out the appellant lacked locus standi to participate. The appellant brought a second appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant had shown sufficient reason for extension of time and validation of an appeal filed out of time where the delay was attributable to her advocates.
  2. Whether grounds 1, 2 and 4 of the appeal were competent in a second appeal, being limited to points of law under section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  3. Whether a defendant in a Magistrate's Court whose Written Statement of Defence has been struck out thereby loses locus standi to participate in the subsequent proceedings.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 195 of 2018 is allowed.
  • The orders of the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2012 and of the Chief Magistrate's Court in the civil suit are set aside.
  • The civil suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court is remitted for retrial before another Magistrate with competent jurisdiction.
  • The appellant shall have only 25% of the taxed costs before the Court of Appeal and the High Court, as only one of four grounds succeeded.
  • The costs in the Magistrate's Court shall abide the outcome of the retrial.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Extension of Time — Mistake of Counsel — Sufficient Reason
A mistake, omission or inadvertence of counsel ought not to be visited on the litigant, and may amount to sufficient reason for extending time, but the court must also be satisfied that refusing the extension would result in a manifest denial of justice before exercising its discretion to grant relief.
Second Appeals — Jurisdiction Confined to Points of Law — Section 72(1) Civil Procedure Act
On a second appeal the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is restricted under section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to matters of law, save in exceptional circumstances, and grounds founded on findings of fact or mixed law and fact must be struck out.
Pleadings in Magistrates' Courts — Written Statement of Defence Not Mandatory — Order 6 Rule 27 CPR
Under Order 6 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules the filing of a Written Statement of Defence is not mandatory in a Magistrate's Court, and failure to file or the striking out of a WSD does not ipso facto divest a defendant of locus standi to participate fully in the proceedings unless the court otherwise orders.
Fair Hearing — Non-Derogable Right — Effect of Breach — Articles 28 and 44(c)
The right to a fair hearing is non-derogable under Articles 28 and 44(c) of the Constitution, and a judgment or ruling arrived at in breach of that right is null and void and cannot be enforced; orders made under Order 6 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules must not violate it.
Specific Provisions Prevail Over General Provisions
Where two provisions of the law address the same subject, the specific provision supersedes the general; Order 6 rule 27, being specific to pleadings in Magistrates' Courts, governs over the general formal-proof provisions of Order 9 rules 10 and 11.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71 s.72(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71 s.74
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 r.10
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 r.11
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.27
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 44(c)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions, S.I. 13-10 Rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions, S.I. 13-10 Rule 5
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions, S.I. 13-10 Rule 43(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions, S.I. 13-10 Rule 44

Cases cited (11)

  • Kirya Grace Wanzala v Daudi Migereko and Anor (Election Reference Appeal No. 39 of 2012)
  • Charles Kangamiteto v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1978)
  • Godfrey Magezi and Anor v Sudhir Ruparelia [2004] UGSC 33
  • F.L Kaderbhai and Anor v Shamsherali Zaver Virji & Ors [2008] UGSC 20
  • Boney M. Katatumba v Waheed Karim [2008] UGSC 3
  • Musoke Charles and Others v Manyangwa Lovincer & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 159 of 2018)
  • Lubanga Jamada v Dr Ddumba Edward (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011)
  • Mitwalo Magyendo v Medadi Mutyaba (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1996)
  • Kambenkwine Christopher & 2 Others v Rose Bella Rwomushana & 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2014)
  • Lweza Clays Limited & Another v Tropical Bank Limited & Another (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2018) [2021] UGSC 76
  • Babcon Uganda Limited v Mbale Resort Hotel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2016)
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.