Godfrey Sentongo v David Balya Katumba (Civil Appeal No. 245 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 286 · 2025 Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

First appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision in an originating summons concerning administration of an intestate estate

Decision

Appeal struck off the record for want of competent grounds; costs to the respondent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) 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 preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that all eight grounds in the memorandum of appeal offended Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which requires grounds to be set forth concisely and under distinct heads, without argument or narrative, specifying the points alleged to have been wrongly decided. Although the respondent had contested only grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, the Court found on its own perusal that grounds 1 and 6 were equally defective. All grounds were struck out, and as the appeal had no surviving grounds, it was struck off the record with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The appellant and the respondent, together with five others, were children of the late Ruth Namyalo Nalongo, who died intestate leaving several properties in and around Masaka. The appellant and his four sisters obtained letters of administration in 2009. After the grant, the administrators refused or failed to distribute the estate to the beneficiaries, including the respondent, despite requests. The respondent filed High Court Civil Suit No. 02 of 2015 by originating summons seeking determination of the lawfulness of the administrators' conduct. The High Court found the issues in the respondent's favour and ordered distribution of the estate to all beneficiaries with subsequent filing of accounts, holding that administrators do not hold property in perpetuity. The appellant appealed, raising eight grounds largely complaining that the trial judge ignored his applications and letters and denied him a fair hearing. The respondent objected that the grounds did not comply with the form required for a memorandum of appeal.

Issues

Whether the grounds of appeal in the memorandum of appeal complied with Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules requiring grounds to be set out concisely and without argument or narrative.
Whether the appeal could stand once all of its grounds of appeal were struck out for non-compliance with Rule 86(1).

Orders

The Appeal is struck out.
Civil Application No. 48 of 2022 is overtaken by events and is struck off the record.
Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Form of grounds under Rule 86(1)

A ground of appeal must be set forth concisely and under distinct heads, without argument or narrative, and must specify the points alleged to have been wrongly decided; grounds that are argumentative or narrative offend Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and are liable to be struck out.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Effect of striking out all grounds of appeal

Where every ground in a memorandum of appeal is struck out for non-compliance with the rules, the appeal has no grounds left to support it and is itself struck off the record.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Court's power to consider compliance of uncontested grounds

An appellate court is not confined to the grounds challenged by the respondent and may, on its own perusal of the memorandum of appeal, find further grounds defective for non-compliance with the rules.

Legislation cited (3)

Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10, Rule 30(1)(a)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10, Rule 86(1)
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 237(1)

Cases cited (2)

Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Father Narsensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)

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.