Musonge Moses Musah v Muwonge Peter [2006] UGSC 19

Supreme Court · 2006 Cross-Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Cross-appeal in the Supreme Court following the striking out of the substantive appeal from a Court of Appeal decision

Decision

Cross-appeal allowed and matter remitted to the High Court for assessment of general damages

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 Supreme Court held that a cross-appeal does not die with the striking out of the substantive appeal; under Rule 90 of the Rules of the Court the cross-appeal proceeds to hearing as if the cross-appellant were an appellant, so it remained viable. On the merits, the Court of Appeal had erred by granting 'the reliefs sought in the High Court' without quantifying or directing assessment of the general damages. While the Court had power under Rule 30 and section 7 of the Judicature Act either to assess damages itself or remit the matter, it declined to assess damages itself to preserve the parties' right of appeal, and remitted the matter to the trial court for assessment.

Facts

The appellant represented to the respondent that he owned registered land comprised in Kibuga Block B plot No. 484 and held a certificate of title. The respondent agreed to buy the land for a money consideration evidenced in writing and paid a deposit of Shs. 650,000. It later emerged that the appellant did not have the certificate of title, claiming it had been lost during the war. Through the respondent's efforts a special certificate of title was procured. When the respondent offered the balance of the purchase price and asked for transfer, the appellant refused. The respondent sued for breach of contract, seeking general damages of Shs. 10 million. The High Court dismissed the suit with costs and made no finding on damages. The respondent succeeded in the Court of Appeal, which granted 'the reliefs sought in the High Court' but neither assessed the general damages nor directed their assessment. The appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court was struck out as incompetent, and the respondent's cross-appeal on the unassessed damages proceeded.

Issues

Whether a cross-appeal remains viable and competent for hearing after the substantive appeal has been struck out for being incompetent.
Whether the Supreme Court has power to assess the general damages itself or to remit the matter to the High Court for assessment.
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting the reliefs sought in the High Court without assessing or directing the assessment of the general damages payable.

Orders

Cross-appeal allowed.
Matter remitted to the High Court (same trial judge or his successor) for assessment of general damages.
Costs of the cross-appeal in the Supreme Court and in the Court of Appeal awarded to the cross-appellant.
Costs in the High Court to the cross-appellant, to be taxed after the damages are awarded.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Cross-Appeals — Effect of striking out the substantive appeal

A cross-appeal does not die with the striking out of the substantive appeal; under Rule 90 of the Rules of the Supreme Court the cross-appeal proceeds to hearing as if the cross-appellant were an appellant and the appellant a respondent.

Appeals — Right of cross-appeal — Existence of an appeal as the sole prerequisite

The only prerequisite for instituting a cross-appeal under Rule 86(1) is the existence of an appeal enabling a respondent to give notice; it is not material that the appeal be a valid one.

General Damages — Award of unquantified damages — Duty to assess or direct assessment

An appellate court that grants relief in the form of general damages must either assess those damages itself or remit the matter to the trial court with a direction to assess them; awarding unquantified damages without assessment or direction is improper.

Appellate Powers — Assessment of damages — Election to remit to preserve right of appeal

Although the Supreme Court has power under Rule 30 of its Rules and section 7 of the Judicature Act to assess general damages itself, it may decline to do so and instead remit the matter to the trial court so as to preserve each party's opportunity to challenge the award on appeal.

Legislation cited (9)

Judicature Act (Cap.13) s.11
Judicature Act s.7
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 30
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 86(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 88
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 89
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 90
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 93
Court of Appeal Rules rule 31(1)

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.