Wakilii

Kibirige v Yako Bank Uganda Limited & Another (Civil Application 148 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 55 · 2025 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Court of Appeal for extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against a ruling of the High Court (Commercial Division) in objector proceedings.
Decision
Application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal dismissed; the preliminary objection that the application was barred by law was upheld.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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

The Court of Appeal held that an order made in objector proceedings under Order 22 rule 60 of the Civil Procedure Rules is conclusive and bars any right of appeal; the only remedy saved is a separate suit to establish a right in the attached property. It upheld the 1st respondent's preliminary objection that the application was barred by law, which disposed of the entire application. For completeness, the court added that it would in any event have dismissed the application because the applicant was guilty of inordinate delay and dilatory conduct, and because the intended appeal raised matters substantially in issue in a previously instituted, pending suit, rendering the application an abuse of court process. The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

Following a default judgment in favour of the 1st respondent bank against the 2nd respondent, the High Court issued a warrant of attachment over property comprised in LRV 4000 Folio 4 Plot 46 Mulamula Road. The applicant, executor of the late Bulaimu Muwanga Kibirige's estate, filed objector proceedings claiming the property belonged to the estate and had been fraudulently transferred to the 2nd respondent; the objector application was dismissed on 14 March 2023, and his subsequent application for leave to appeal was dismissed on 5 April 2023. Instead of promptly seeking leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal, the applicant pursued interim orders and a temporary injunction in the Land and Family Divisions, and instituted a separate suit (HCCS No. 358 of 2023) alleging fraudulent transfer of the same property. Eleven months and seven days after the dismissal, he filed Civil Application No. 149 of 2024 seeking leave to appeal and the present application to validate it and extend time.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for extension of time is barred by law, the order made in objector proceedings under Order 22 rule 60 of the Civil Procedure Rules being conclusive and not appealable.
  2. Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause and was free of dilatory conduct and inordinate delay so as to warrant an extension of time.
  3. Whether the application amounts to an abuse of court process given the parallel suit pending in the Family Division of the High Court.

Orders

  • The 1st respondent's preliminary objection that the application is barred by law is upheld.
  • The application is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Objector Proceedings — Conclusiveness of Order under Order 22 rule 60 — No Right of Appeal
An order made in objector proceedings under Order 22 rule 60 of the Civil Procedure Rules is conclusive and bars any right of appeal; the only course saved is the institution of a separate suit to establish a right in the attached property.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Pure Point of Law Capable of Disposing of a Suit
A preliminary objection is a pure point of law which, if established, is capable of disposing of a suit without inquiry into its merits; an objection that requires the evaluation of evidence or that delves into the merits is not a true preliminary objection.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Dilatory Conduct and Inordinate Delay
The grant of an extension of time is a matter of judicial discretion, not a right; sufficient cause must relate to the inability or failure to take the necessary step within the prescribed time, and where the applicant is guilty of dilatory conduct or inordinate delay, time will not be extended.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Court Process — Sub Judice — Section 6 Civil Procedure Act
Where the matter in issue in an intended appeal is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted and pending suit between the same parties litigating under the same title, validating the application and hearing the appeal would interfere with the pending suit and amounts to an abuse of the court process.
Statutory Interpretation — Right of Appeal — Creature of Statute
A right of appeal is a creature of statute and is either conferred or barred by statute; it cannot be assumed where the governing rule expressly provides that the order shall be conclusive.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rr.2(2), 5, 6(2), 40(2), 42(2), 43, 44(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.60
  • Civil Procedure Act s.76
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 rr.1, 2
  • Civil Procedure Act s.6

Cases cited (17)

  • F.L. Kaderbhai and Another v Shamsherali Zaver Virji and Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2008)
  • Nabco Enterprises Uganda Limited v Registered Trustees of the Jesuit (Society of Jesus) (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2021)
  • Capt. Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Bugondo Samuel v Ngansiana Talikida Sserunjogi and Others (Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2021)
  • Kabale Housing Estate Tenants Association Ltd v Kabale Municipal Local Government Council (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013)
  • Rossette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1986)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696
  • Gelladine Busingye Begumisa v East African Development Bank and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1043 of 2023)
  • Sosthenes Bruno and Another v Flora Shauri (Civil Appeal No. 249 of 2022)
  • Thomas Joseph Kimaro V Apaisaria Martin Curi Mkombo and Another [2022] T.L.R 369
  • Bank of Tanzania V Devram P. Valambhia, Civil Reference No. 4 of 2003
  • Kezia Violet Mato V The National Bank of Commerce and three others, Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2005
  • Baku Raphael Obudra v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
  • Vamee Industries Limited v Commissioner Land Registration and Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 342 of 2022)
  • David Muhenda v Humphrey Mirembe (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2012)
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolamu Egondi (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
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.