Wakilii

Tinkamanyire v Kihika & Another (Civil Application 34 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 84 · 2025 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Court of Appeal for a certificate of importance to lodge a third appeal to the Supreme Court
Decision
Application for a certificate of importance dismissed; certificate refused

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 an application for a certificate of importance to lodge a third appeal to the Supreme Court under section 6(2) of the Judicature Act, the Court of Appeal held that the proposed questions — whether a sale by a sole beneficiary without letters of administration is void or voidable, and whether the applicant was barred by laches — were not matters of great public or general importance. They had not arisen for determination in the courts below and affected only the parties, not the nation at large. An applicant must show how such a question arose and was left unresolved, mishandled or ignored. The court declined to certify and dismissed the application with costs.

Facts

The respondents sued the applicant in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Fort Portal for trespass to customary land at Nyakabale, Kyenjojo District, which they claimed by inheritance. The applicant claimed to have purchased the land from one Egaate Katenga. The trial magistrate found the applicant a trespasser and the sale voidable because Egaate lacked letters of administration. The High Court, on first appeal, set aside that decision, finding the evidence did not support it. On second appeal, the Court of Appeal restored the position against the applicant, holding that Egaate could not pass good title without letters of administration and that the applicant was estopped by limitation, having allegedly bought the land in 1983 but only entering possession around 1998, after the respondents had held it for over fifteen years. The applicant then sought a certificate of importance to mount a third appeal to the Supreme Court on questions concerning sales by beneficiaries without letters of administration and the doctrine of laches.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established sufficient grounds for the grant of a certificate of importance to lodge a third appeal to the Supreme Court.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The court declines to certify that the intended third appeal raises any matter of law of great public or general importance.
  • The application is dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Third Appeal to the Supreme Court — Certificate of Importance under Judicature Act s.6(2)
A third appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision originating in a Chief Magistrate's Court may be entertained only on a certificate of the Court of Appeal that the appeal concerns a matter of law of great public or general importance, or, where the certificate is refused, on leave granted by the Supreme Court in its overall duty to see that justice is done.
Civil Procedure — Certificate of Importance — Meaning of 'Matter of Great Public or General Importance'
A matter is of great public or general importance only where the issue to be canvassed transcends the circumstances of the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest; a question that affects only the parties, or a mere apprehension of a miscarriage of justice, does not qualify.
Civil Procedure — Certificate of Importance — Question Must Have Arisen in the Courts Below
An applicant for a certificate of importance must show how the alleged question of great public or general importance arose; the record must reflect that the question arose and was either not resolved, mishandled or ignored, and a question that was not a ground of appeal in the first or second appeal cannot be considered in a third appeal.
Civil Procedure — Certificate of Importance — Questions of Fact Excluded
Determinations of fact in contests between parties are not, by themselves, a basis for certifying an appeal to the Supreme Court; a question of fact, such as whether a vendor was a sole beneficiary, cannot found a certificate of importance.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Judicature Act s.6(2)
  • Judicature Act s.5(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 39(1)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 163(4)(b)

Cases cited (6)

  • Sekyanzi Sempijja v Prof. Gordon Wavamuno [2023] UGSC 28
  • Kato Bumali v Uganda [2020] UGSC 14
  • Namuddu Christine v Uganda [2001] UGSC 2
  • Rwabuhemba Tim Musinguzi v Harriet Kamakune [2009] UGCA 34
  • Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone [2013] KESC 11 (KLR)
  • Major (RTD) Roland Kakooza Mutale v Balisigara Stephen [2022] UGCA 3
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.