Wakilii

Kasirivu Atwooki & 3 Ors v Bamurangye Baroroza & 53 Ors [2010] UGSC 25

Supreme Court · 2010 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out a Supreme Court civil appeal as incompetent
Decision
Application granted; Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2010 struck out as incompetent

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 applicants sought to strike out a civil appeal lodged against a Court of Appeal ruling in an interlocutory application. The Supreme Court held that its appellate jurisdiction is conferred by statute and it has no inherent power of appeal. Under section 6 of the Judicature Act an appeal lies as of right only where the Court of Appeal confirms, varies or reverses a decision of the High Court. As the impugned ruling concerned an interlocutory matter and did not do so, no appeal lay and Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2010 was incompetent. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to confer statutory appellate jurisdiction. A preliminary objection to the supporting affidavit under the Oaths Act was rejected. The application was granted and the appeal struck out.

Facts

The respondents had appealed to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court. The applicants, as respondents in the Court of Appeal, filed Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 85 of 2008 seeking to strike out that appeal for failure to serve the notice of appeal as required by the Rules of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal gave its ruling in that interlocutory matter on 5 June 2009. The respondents then filed a notice of appeal and on 10 February 2010 instituted Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2010 against that interlocutory ruling. On 9 April 2010 the applicants lodged a notice of motion asking the Supreme Court to strike out the appeal on the grounds that no appeal lies against an interlocutory decision of the Court of Appeal that did not confirm, vary or reverse a High Court decision, that leave to appeal had been denied by the Court of Appeal and not sought from the Supreme Court, and that the appeal was filed out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Court of Appeal made in an interlocutory matter that does not confirm, vary or reverse a decision of the High Court.
  2. Whether the Court may use its inherent jurisdiction to confer statutory appellate jurisdiction on itself and decline to strike out the appeal.
  3. Whether the supporting affidavit was invalid for failing to state that its contents were true and correct as allegedly required by section 5 of the Oaths Act.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2010 struck out.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Source of appellate jurisdiction
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is conferred by statute; the Court has no inherent power of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Interlocutory orders of the Court of Appeal
Under section 6 of the Judicature Act an appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court only where the Court of Appeal confirms, varies or reverses a judgment or order of the High Court; no appeal lies from an interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal that does not do so.
Civil Procedure — Inherent jurisdiction — Limits
Inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to confer statutory appellate jurisdiction on the Court.
Evidence — Affidavits — Validity under section 5 of the Oaths Act
Section 5 of the Oaths Act does not require an affidavit to contain a statement that its contents are true and correct; an affidavit bearing a proper jurat sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths is validly sworn.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Judicature Act s.4
  • Judicature Act s.6(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.78
  • Oaths Act s.5
  • Constitution Article 132
  • Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 2(2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Uganda v Lule [1974] EA 362
  • Attorney General v Shah (No.4) [1971] EA 50
  • Sesiriya Nakanwagi v Kyagwe Motor Spares [1964] EA 41
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) HCB 11
  • Uganda National Examinations Board v Mpora General Contractors (Civil Application No. 19 of 2004)
  • Beatrice Kobusingye v Fiona Nyakana & Another (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004)
  • F. Musiitwa Kyazze's case
  • Mugenyi Vs National Insurance Corporation
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.