Okitela Joseph v Opoli Patrick (Civil Appeal No.140 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 261 · 2025 Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision given on first appeal from the Magistrate Grade 1, Tororo, in a suit for recovery of customary land

Decision

Appeal struck out as incompetent; the High Court's decision declaring the respondent the lawful owner of the suit land left undisturbed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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

On a respondent's preliminary objection, the Court of Appeal struck out the entire second appeal as incompetent. Grounds 1 and 3, complaining generally that the first appellate judge failed to evaluate the evidence, did not specify which evidence was wrongly evaluated or how, and so contravened Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules; they were vague, general and unarguable. Ground 2 — whether the appellant's father gave the land to the school — was a question of fact, not law, and could not be entertained on a second appeal confined by sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act to questions of law. With no competent ground remaining, the whole appeal was struck out with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent in the Magistrate Grade 1 court, Tororo, to recover land he said was customary land inherited from his late father, Yakobo Owori, claiming the respondent built on it without consent. The respondent's case was that he bought the land from Maliri Primary School for UGX 2,000,000 in lieu of building materials he had supplied to the school, the land having been donated to the school in the 1980s by neighbouring elders, including the appellant's father. The Magistrate gave judgment for the appellant. On the respondent's 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 a second appeal to the Court of Appeal, which determined only the respondent's preliminary objection to the competence of the grounds of appeal.

Issues

Whether grounds 1 and 3 of the memorandum of appeal, alleging a general failure to evaluate evidence, were too general and vague to satisfy Rule 86(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions.
Whether ground 2 of the appeal raised a question of fact and was therefore incompetent on a second appeal limited by sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act to questions of law.

Orders

Grounds 1 and 3 of the appeal struck off as vague, general and incompetent.
Ground 2 of the appeal struck off as raising a question of fact.
The whole appeal struck out with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Specificity of Grounds under Rule 86(1)

A ground of appeal complaining only that the court below failed to evaluate the evidence, without specifying which evidence was wrongly accepted or evaluated and in what specific aspect the decision went wrong, is too general and contravenes Rule 86(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, and is liable to be struck out.

Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Vagueness

A ground of appeal is vague, and therefore incompetent, where it is couched so that it provides no explicit standard for being understood, is not defined in relation to the subject matter, or is not particularised so as to give the respondent adequate notice of the complaint to be met.

Second Appeals — Limitation to Questions of Law under Sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act

On a second appeal to the Court of Appeal under sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act, the grounds are confined to questions of law; a ground that is in truth one of fact or of mixed law and fact is wrong in law and must be struck out, and the label an appellant attaches to it does not determine its true character.

Appeals — Distinction Between a Question of Law and a Question of Fact

A question of law is one the court answers by a rule of law or as to what the correct legal test is, whereas a question of fact concerns what actually took place between the parties; whether the appellant's father gave the disputed land to the school is a question of fact not determinable by any rule of law.

Legislation cited (4)

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

Cases cited (5)

Ranchobhai Shivaji Patel Ltd & Another v Henry Wambuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017)
Celtel Uganda Ltd t/a ZAIN Uganda v Karungi Susan (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013)
Lubanga Jamada v Dr Ddumba Edward (2016) UGCA
Unity Bank Plc v Declag Limited (2012) 18 NWLR p.293(SC)
Addax Pet.Dev.Co. (Nig)Ltd v Duke (2010) 8 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.