Wasswa v Ssebiragala (Civil Application 17 of 2018)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 94 · 2018 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to the Supreme Court for leave to lodge a third appeal against a Court of Appeal decision

Decision

Application for leave to lodge a third appeal dismissed with costs

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 Court dismissed the application for leave to lodge a third appeal. Under Rule 41(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, where an application may be made to either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, it must first be made to the Court of Appeal; the Supreme Court's discretion under Rule 41(2) is engaged only where the Court of Appeal has refused jurisdiction, refused for manifestly wrong reasons, or where there is great delay. The applicant already had a similar application pending in the Court of Appeal, and the delay of one year and two months did not constitute unreasonable delay. The applicant had not shown how the case fell within the inherent jurisdiction under Rule 2(2), and the procedure under Rule 39 was not followed.

Facts

The underlying dispute concerned land that the applicant claimed had been donated to him inter vivos by his late father. The respondent had sued the applicant for trespass; the trial Chief Magistrate found the donation letter genuine and the High Court dismissed the respondent's appeal. The Court of Appeal then allowed the respondent's appeal. Dissatisfied, the applicant sought leave to lodge a third appeal to the Supreme Court. The applicant had earlier filed a similar application for leave (Civil/Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2017) in the Court of Appeal on 1 March 2017, writing to the Deputy Chief Justice to have it fixed, but it remained unheard. On 4 May 2018 the applicant filed the present application in the Supreme Court, contending that the delay in the Court of Appeal justified the Supreme Court assuming jurisdiction. The respondent objected that the application was incompetent and premature given the pending Court of Appeal application.

Issues

Whether the Supreme Court may entertain an application for leave to lodge a third appeal where a similar application is already pending before the Court of Appeal.
Whether the delay in the Court of Appeal hearing the applicant's pending application amounted to great or unreasonable delay justifying the Supreme Court assuming jurisdiction under Rule 41(2).

Orders

The application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Concurrent Jurisdiction — Order of Applications to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal

Where an application may be made either to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeal, it must first be made to the Court of Appeal under Rule 41(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules; the jurisdiction of the two courts is not simultaneous.

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Supreme Court's Discretion to Intervene under Rule 41(2)

The Supreme Court may exercise its discretion under Rule 41(2) to entertain an application notwithstanding that no application was first made to the Court of Appeal only where the Court of Appeal has refused to accept jurisdiction, refused jurisdiction for manifestly wrong reasons, or where there is great delay, and the court must be appraised of all the facts.

Civil Procedure — Delay — What Constitutes Unreasonable Delay by the Court of Appeal

A period of one year and two months between filing an application in the Court of Appeal and seeking the Supreme Court's intervention does not amount to unreasonable delay; the Supreme Court cannot simply take over the role of the Court of Appeal.

Statutory Interpretation — Judicature Act s.6(2) — Distinct Grounds for Granting Leave for a Third Appeal

Under section 6(2) of the Judicature Act, the Supreme Court is not restricted to questions of law of great public or general importance as the Court of Appeal is; it may grant leave for a third appeal whenever, in its overall duty to see that justice is done, it considers that the appeal should be heard — but this concerns the merits, not the propriety of bringing the application before it.

Legislation cited (9)

Judicature Act s.6(2)
Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2(2)
Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.39(1)
Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.41(1)
Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.41(2)
Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.42
Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.43
Court of Appeal Rules r.86(1)
Court of Appeal Rules r.102(a)

Cases cited (6)

Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
Joel Kato & Margaret Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Civil Application No. 12 of 2011)
Bitamisi Namuddu v Rwabugande Godfrey (Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2015)
Namuddu Christine v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 3 of 1999)
Nsereko Joseph & Others v Bank of Uganda (Civil Application No. 13 of 2009)
Kituuma Magala & Co. Advocates v Celtel (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 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.