Wakilii

Zakaria v Difasi & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2018)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 59 · 2018 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for a certificate of importance/leave to appeal (third appeal) under s.6(2) of the Judicature Act, following the Court of Appeal's refusal of such certificate
Decision
Application for a certificate of importance/leave to appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal decision stands

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 applicant sought a certificate of importance/leave to bring a third appeal to the Supreme Court under s.6(2) of the Judicature Act, after the Court of Appeal declined certification. The Court held that, while it enjoys wider latitude than the Court of Appeal and may consider any matter relevant to doing justice, certification requires an issue whose determination transcends the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest. Determinations of fact between parties and mere apprehension of a miscarriage of justice do not qualify. The applicant failed to identify any specific element of general or public importance. The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The dispute concerned ownership of approximately 12 acres of land contested between the applicant and the respondents. In 1982, the respondents' father sued the applicant's father over the land at the Grade II Magistrate's Court, Kisoko; that suit was unsuccessful and was never appealed. Later, in Civil Suit No. 12 of 2012, the applicant sued the respondents in the Chief Magistrate's Court, Tororo. The Chief Magistrate found the applicant had not been a co-defendant in the earlier case, dismissed the suit, and ordered the land divided equally between the parties. On appeal, the High Court at Mbale adjudged the applicant owner of the land. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, which held the matter was not res judicata, set aside the High Court decision, and reinstated the Chief Magistrate's order dividing the land. The Court of Appeal declined to certify the matter for a third appeal. The applicant then applied to the Supreme Court for a certificate of importance/leave to appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of a certificate of importance/leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under s.6(2) of the Judicature Act.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Third appeal to the Supreme Court — Certificate of importance under s.6(2) Judicature Act
A third appeal from a magistrate's original jurisdiction lies to the Supreme Court only on a certificate that the appeal concerns a matter of law of great public or general importance, or where the Supreme Court, in its overall duty to see that justice is done, considers that the appeal should be heard.
Leave to appeal — Supreme Court's discretion distinguished from the Court of Appeal
In deciding whether to grant leave, the Supreme Court is not restricted to questions of law as the Court of Appeal is; it may consider any matter relevant to doing justice, including questions of law of general or public importance.
Certificate of importance — Meaning of a matter of great public or general importance
A matter of general public importance is one whose determination transcends the circumstances of the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest; mere apprehension of a miscarriage of justice and determinations of fact in contests between parties are not, by themselves, a proper basis for certification.
Certificate of importance — Burden on the intending appellant
An intending appellant bears the obligation to identify and concisely set out the specific elements of general public importance attributed to the matter for which certification is sought.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Judicature Act s.6(2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Namuddu v Uganda [2004] 2 EA 2017 (SCU)
  • Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gucchi-Ruscone (Application No. 4 of 2010)
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.