Wakilii

Londa M Abdullah v James Mago Ikuya (Civil Application No. 570 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 41 · 2026 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend the memorandum of appeal in a pending second appeal
Decision
Application for leave to amend dismissed with costs; the underlying second appeal (Civil Appeal No. 113 of 2015) remains as filed

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

The Court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to amend the memorandum of appeal in a pending second appeal. It held that, under Sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act, a second appeal lies only on points of law, and the discretionary power to amend pleadings under Rule 45 of the Court of Appeal Rules must yield to that substantive restriction. The proposed amendments were crafted to reframe factual disputes as legal errors, which the law expressly prohibits. An incompetent second appeal filed in contravention of these sections cannot be validated by procedural amendment, because the defect goes to the existence of the right of appeal itself.

Facts

The dispute originated in Civil Suit No. 83 of 2010 in the Magistrate Grade I Court, Mbale, where the respondent sued the applicant for vacant possession of Plot 55 Naboa Road, Mbale and recovery of rent arrears of UGX 19,800,000. The trial Magistrate entered judgment for the applicant on his counterclaim and dismissed the respondent's main suit. On appeal to the High Court (HCCA No. 87 of 2012), Justice Henry Kawesa, on 31 March 2015, allowed the appeal and granted the respondent the reliefs sought. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal and, on 22 June 2015, filed the memorandum of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 113 of 2015, a second appeal; conferencing concluded on 28 January 2016. Before hearing, the applicant's former advocate died. New counsel, on perusing the record, found the grounds non-compliant with the law governing second appeals. On 2 June 2022 the applicant filed this application for leave to amend the memorandum by substituting the defective grounds with grounds confined to pure questions of law.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to amend a memorandum of appeal in a second appeal to substitute defective grounds with grounds framed as pure questions of law.
  2. Whether the discretion to allow amendment of pleadings under Rule 45 of the Court of Appeal Rules can override Sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act restricting second appeals to points of law.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Restriction to Points of Law
A second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decree of the High Court passed on appeal lies only on grounds of pure law under Sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act; grounds of fact or of mixed law and fact must be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Amendments Prohibited by Law
Leave to amend pleadings will not be granted where the amendment is expressly or impliedly prohibited by law, including where it seeks to reframe factual disputes as legal errors to circumvent the statutory restriction on second-appeal grounds.
Statutory Interpretation — Subsidiary Rules Yielding to Substantive Law
The discretion conferred by Rule 45 of the Court of Appeal Rules to grant leave to amend a memorandum of appeal must align with substantive law and cannot override Sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Competence of Appeal — Validation by Amendment
Where a second appeal is filed in contravention of Sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act, the defect goes to the existence of the right of appeal itself, and an incompetent appeal cannot be validated by procedural amendment.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 71) s.72
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 71) s.74
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.32(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.45(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.45(2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adota Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Lubanga Jannada v Dr. Edward Ddumba [2016] UGCA 11
  • Celtel Uganda Limited t/a Zain Uganda v Karungi (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013)
  • Kisembo Emmanuel & Others v Tibezinda Moses & Others (Civil Appeal No. 250 of 2016)
  • Municipal Council Kisoro and Anor v Zungu Christine (Civil Appeal No. 294 of 2016)
  • Lukyamuzi Emmanuel v Hajjat Aisha Nantume (Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2009)
  • Abdallah Wahasimbi v Wakida Nanaye (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
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.