Wakilii

Lawendi Martin v Kiptoo Vincent (Civil Appeal No. 205 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 58 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from a decision of the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction
Decision
Sole surviving ground struck out as incompetent; appeal dismissed and judgment of the High Court affirmed

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

Sitting as a second appellate court, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that its jurisdiction under section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is confined to questions of law and does not extend to re-evaluating the evidence considered by the first appellate court. The appellant's surviving ground merely alleged that the trial judge failed to properly appraise the facts, without identifying any specific legal error or material evidence ignored. The court held the ground was too general and incompetent, struck it out, and, it being the only ground, the appeal failed. The judgment and orders of the High Court were affirmed, with costs of the appeal and of the courts below awarded to the respondent.

Facts

The respondent sued in the Magistrate's Court at Kapchorwa alleging unlawful entry, trespass and interference with his quiet possession of land he had acquired from his late father, Erukana Silakwa, in 2002. He remained in possession until 2005, when the appellant allegedly forcefully re-entered the land. The appellant denied the respondent's ownership and contended that the land had been sold to him, relying on an agreement admitted in evidence as DEX1, and asserted that the land he occupied was distinct from that claimed by the respondent. The trial court entered judgment in favour of the respondent. On first appeal, the High Court re-evaluated the evidence and upheld that decision. The appellant then brought this second appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether, on a second appeal, the Court of Appeal may re-evaluate the evidence considered by the first appellate court.
  2. Whether a ground of appeal alleging a general failure to appraise the facts, without specifying the legal error, is competent.

Orders

  • The judgment and orders of the High Court are affirmed.
  • The costs of this appeal and of the courts below are awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Jurisdiction Confined to Questions of Law
On a second appeal under section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court's jurisdiction is restricted to matters of law, and a ground that invites it to review and re-evaluate the evidence considered by the first appellate court is wrong in law.
Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Requirement of Specificity
A ground of appeal must specify the particular error complained of; a ground that is too general and merely alleges a failure to evaluate the evidence, without identifying the specific wrong decision or area, is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Sufficiency of Evidence Supporting Findings of Fact
Where there is some competent evidence to support a finding of fact, a second appellate court cannot go into the sufficiency of that evidence or the reasonableness of the finding, and may interfere only where there was no evidence to support the finding, that being a question of law.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.72(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 91 of 2005 Rule 32(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 86(1)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Celtel Uganda Limited v Karungi Susan (Civil Appeal No. 0073 of 2013)
  • Ranchobhai Shivabhai Patel Ltd and Anor v Henry Wambuga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2017)
  • Mitwalo Magyengo v Medadi Mutyaba (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1996)
  • Maina v Mugiria [1983] KLR 78
  • P.R. Pandya v. R (supra)
  • Kairu v Uganda [1978] HCB 123
  • R. Mohamed Ali Hasham v R (1941) 8 E.A.C.A. 93
  • R. vs. Hassan bin Said (l9t4) E.A.C.A. 62
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.