Anvwar Felix v Denis Opinti-Twontoo and Others (Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 270 · 2025 Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision in a customary land ownership dispute originating in the Chief Magistrate's Court

Decision

Appeal struck out as incompetent; High Court judgment in favour of the respondents stands

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 a second appeal in a customary land dispute, the Court of Appeal held that a second appeal lies only on points of law under section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, and concurrent findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts are final absent special circumstances. A ground alleging only that the judge failed to re-evaluate the evidence and reached a wrong conclusion, without specifying the evidence or the precise error, is too general and offends Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court. Both grounds, so framed (and the second not argued), were struck out, rendering the appeal incompetent. The appeal was struck out with costs to the respondents.

Facts

The respondents sued the appellant in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Gulu claiming customary ownership of land at Along village, Bobi sub-county, Omoro county, Gulu District, and sought the appellant's eviction. They asserted their late father settled on the land in 1954, that their stay was disrupted by the 1990 Northern Uganda insurgency forcing some to a Bobi IDP camp, and that the appellant's relative later constructed a kraal on the land without consent. The appellant denied the claim, asserted he was the rightful owner, and sought a permanent injunction. In 2012 the Grade One Magistrate found for the appellant and declared him the lawful owner. The respondents appealed to the High Court at Gulu, where Keitirima, J., on 27 March 2015, re-evaluated the evidence, including testimony given at the locus in quo and graves and houses of the respondents on the land, and found in favour of the respondents. The appellant lodged this second appeal.

Issues

Whether the first appellate judge failed to judicially re-examine and appraise the evidence on record as a first appellate court and came to a wrong conclusion.
Whether the grounds of appeal, as framed in the memorandum of appeal, raised competent points of law under section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act and complied with Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Ground 1 of the appeal struck out for contravening Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court.
Ground 2 of the appeal struck out for the same reasons.
Appeal found incompetent and struck out.
Costs of the appeal and in the courts below awarded to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Restriction to Points of Law (s.72 Civil Procedure Act)

A second appeal to the Court of Appeal lies only on points of law; the assessment of evidence by the trial court and the first appellate court is final, and a second appellate court will depart from the concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts only where special circumstances justify doing so.

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

A ground of appeal that merely alleges the judge failed to judicially re-examine and appraise the evidence and came to a wrong conclusion, without specifying the particular evidence concerned or the precise error in the decision, is too general, contravenes Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court, and is liable to be struck out.

Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Distinction Between Points of Law and Points of Fact

An appeal on a point of law arises where the court got the relevant law wrong or applied it wrongly, or reached a conclusion on the facts outside the range a properly directed court would have reached; grounds raising findings of fact or mixed law and fact on a second appeal are wrong in law and are either abandoned or struck out.

Legislation cited (5)

Civil Procedure Act s.72
Civil Procedure Act s.73
Civil Procedure Act s.74
Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 32(2)
Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 86(1)

Cases cited (7)

Ssessaazi Kulabhirauto Versus Robinah Nalubego Civil Appeal No.55/02
Henry Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Nazmudin Gulam Hussein Viram v Nicholas Roassos (Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2006)
Maddumba v Wilberforce Kuluse (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2002)
Lubanga Jamada v Dr. Ddumba Edward [2016] UGCA 11
Ranchobhai Shivabhai Patel Ltd and Another v Henry Wambuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2017)
Celtel Uganda Limited T/A Zain Uganda v Susan Karungi (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013)

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.