Iddi Kisiki Lubyayi v Ssewankambo Musa Kamulegeya (Civil Application 5 of 2008)

Supreme Court · [2008] UGSC 22 · 2008 Adjourned to Full Court ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Ruling by a single judge of the Supreme Court on preliminary objections to an application for extension of time and validation/reinstatement of a notice of appeal struck out by the full court in an election matter.

Decision

Application adjourned to be heard by the full court; costs to abide the disposal of the application.

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

On preliminary objections, the single judge held that a single judge of the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to set aside, or sit in appeal against, an order of the full court, so the prayer to validate or reinstate the notice of appeal struck out by the full court could not be granted by him. He declined, however, to strike out the entire notice of motion, finding he had jurisdiction over the prayer for extension of time. As the full court could not sit urgently for lack of a coram and the parties had not consented to extension, he adjourned the application, under Rule 50(1), to be heard by the full court. He declined to intervene in the by-election process and ordered costs to abide the application's disposal.

Facts

Following the 23 February 2006 parliamentary election for Bukomansimbi Constituency, the applicant was declared winner. The respondent, a registered voter, successfully petitioned the High Court to set aside the election, and the applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal failed. On 22 February 2007 the applicant filed a notice of appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision and requested certified proceedings, which his advocates received on 1 August 2007, but no appeal was instituted during 2007. The respondent then filed Civil Application No. 26 of 2007 to strike out the notice of appeal. The applicant instituted the appeal on 1 February 2008, but on 5 February 2008 the full court struck out the notice of appeal. The applicant brought Civil Applications No. 3 and No. 5 of 2008 seeking leave to file a fresh notice of appeal out of time or to validate the struck-out notice; No. 3 was withdrawn. Meanwhile the Clerk to Parliament had communicated that the seat was vacant and by-election steps were underway.

Issues

Whether a single judge of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to validate or reinstate a notice of appeal struck out by the full court.
Whether the application had been overtaken by events because the parliamentary seat had been declared vacant.
Whether the application should be struck out or, alternatively, adjourned to the full court.

Orders

Objection that a single judge cannot set aside the full court's order striking out the notice of appeal upheld.
Prayer to strike out the notice of motion refused.
Hearing of the application adjourned to the full court, to be fixed as soon as a coram can be realised.
Costs resulting from the objections and the ruling to abide the disposal of the application by the full court.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Supreme Court — Jurisdiction of a Single Judge — Orders of the Full Court

A single judge of the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to set aside, or to sit in appeal against, an order made by the full court; an application to set aside such an order must be determined by the full court.

Civil Procedure — Supreme Court Rules — Rule 50(1) — Single Judge's Power to Hear or Adjourn

Under Rule 50(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court a single judge may hear an application for extension of time, or, where appropriate, adjourn the hearing to the full court for determination rather than strike out the motion.

Legislation cited (2)

Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.95(3)
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 50(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.