Okitela Joseph v Opoli Patrick (Civil Appeal No.14O of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 245 · 2025 Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision (sitting as first appellate court) in a land dispute; determined on the respondent's preliminary objection to the competence of the grounds of appeal.

Decision

Appeal struck out as incompetent; costs to the respondent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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

On the respondent's preliminary objection, the Court of Appeal held grounds 1 and 3 of the memorandum incompetent: a ground merely alleging failure to evaluate the evidence, or a miscarriage of justice, without specifying which evidence was wrongly evaluated or how, is too general and vague and contravenes Rule 86(1). Ground 2 — whether the appellant's father gave land to the school which then sold it to the respondent — was a question of fact (or mixed law and fact), and on a second appeal under sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act only questions of law lie; it was therefore wrong in law. All three grounds were struck off and the whole appeal struck out as incompetent, with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The appellant claimed to be the lawful owner of customary land at Maliri Centre 'A', Merikit Sub County, Tororo District, which he said he inherited from his late father Yakobo Owori, and alleged the respondent entered and built on it from 2003 without his consent. The respondent's case was that he had bought the land from Maliri Primary School on 29 July 1997 for UGX 2,000,000, evidenced by a sale agreement. The land had been donated to the school by neighbouring elders (including the appellant's father) in 1982-1983 for the school's expansion; when the school needed building materials it had no money, so the respondent supplied materials worth UGX 2,000,000 and the land was transferred to him in lieu of payment. The Magistrate Grade 1, Tororo entered judgment for the appellant. On first appeal the High Court (Musota J) re-evaluated the evidence, found the respondent's witnesses more credible, set aside the magistrate's decision and declared the respondent the lawful owner. The appellant brought this second appeal. The Court of Appeal decided no question on the merits of ownership.

Issues

Whether grounds 1 and 3 of the memorandum of appeal, alleging that the first appellate judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence and occasioned a miscarriage of justice, were too general or vague and therefore incompetent under Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Whether ground 2 raised a question of fact that cannot be entertained on a second appeal under sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

Grounds 1 and 3 of the appeal struck off as incompetent.
Ground 2 of the appeal struck off.
The whole appeal struck out as incompetent.
Costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Generality and Rule 86(1)

A ground of appeal that merely alleges the appellate court failed to evaluate the evidence on record, without specifying which evidence was wrongly evaluated or omitted and in what way the decision went wrong, is too general and incompetent under Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and must be struck off.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Vagueness

A ground of appeal alleging that the decision occasioned a miscarriage of justice is vague and incompetent where it is not particularised or defined in relation to the subject matter, so that the substance of the complaint cannot be understood.

Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Questions of Law versus Questions of Fact

On a second appeal under sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act, an appeal lies only on grounds of law (or failure to determine a material issue of law or usage, or a substantial defect in procedure); a ground that is one of fact or of mixed law and fact is wrong in law and will be struck out, and the label attached to a ground does not determine its true character.

Civil Procedure — Appellate Review — Findings of Fact and Credibility

An appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court to disregard a finding of fact based on an inference drawn from accepted evidence and to draw its own inference, but it will generally defer to the trial court on findings of fact founded on the credibility of witnesses.

Legislation cited (5)

Civil Procedure Act s.72
Civil Procedure Act s.73
Civil Procedure Act s.74
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) r.86(1)
Supreme Court Rules r.82(1)

Cases cited (5)

Ranchobhai Shivabhai Patel Ltd & Another v Henry Wambuga & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017)
Celtel Uganda Ltd t/a ZAIN Uganda v Karungi Susan (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013)
Lubanga Jamada v Dr Ddumba Edward (2016) UGCA fl
Unity Bank Plc v Declag Limited (2012) 18 NWLR p.293(SC)
Addax Pet.Dev.Co. (Nig)Ltd v Duke (2010) I NWLR (pt 1196) 278

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.