Kasoma v Sembatya (Civil Application 18 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 13 · 2019 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application by notice of motion to the Supreme Court for a certificate of importance to enable a third appeal

Decision

Application for a certificate of importance dismissed with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 a certificate of importance to bring a third appeal. Under rule 39(1)(b) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, such an application lies to the Supreme Court only after the Court of Appeal has refused to grant a certificate. The applicant had withdrawn his Court of Appeal application, which is not a refusal, so the application contravened the rule and failed on that ground alone. It also failed because the applicant did not demonstrate how a question of great public or general importance arose: he produced no trial or appellate court records to show the jurisdiction objection was raised and mishandled, and mere assertion does not suffice.

Facts

The respondent, while working in Japan, bought two lorries and left them with the director of a company there before being deported to Uganda. The director disposed of the vehicles and altered their chassis numbers. The respondent reported the theft to Interpol. The vehicles were later found in the applicant's possession in Uganda and impounded; the applicant claimed he had bought them from the same Japanese company. The respondent sued successfully in Nakawa Chief Magistrate's Court for recovery of the vehicles. The applicant's appeals to the High Court and the Court of Appeal were both dismissed. The applicant filed an application in the Court of Appeal for a certificate of importance to bring a third appeal, but before it was heard he filed the present application in the Supreme Court and later withdrew the Court of Appeal application.

Issues

Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for a certificate of importance where the applicant had withdrawn, rather than been refused, his application in the Court of Appeal.
Whether the applicant had demonstrated that the intended appeal raised a question of great public or general importance warranting the grant of a certificate of importance.

Orders

Application dismissed.
Costs awarded against the applicant.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Third Appeals — Certificate of Importance — Precondition of Refusal by the Court of Appeal

Under rule 39(1)(b) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, an application to the Supreme Court for a certificate of importance to bring a third appeal lies only after the Court of Appeal has refused to grant such a certificate; where the applicant has withdrawn his application in the Court of Appeal, there is no refusal and the application to the Supreme Court is incompetent.

Civil Procedure — Third Appeals — Certificate of Importance — Burden to Demonstrate a Question of Great Public or General Importance

An applicant for a certificate of importance must show that the intended appeal raises a question of great public or general importance; bare assertion is insufficient, and the court must be satisfied from the records of the trial and appellate courts that the question was raised and not properly handled, so failure to produce those records is fatal to the application.

Civil Procedure — Statutory Procedure — Prescribed Procedure Cannot Be Circumvented

Statutory procedure laid down for invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be followed and cannot be circumvented by contrived excuses, and delay by the Court of Appeal in fixing an application for hearing does not amount to a refusal to grant a certificate.

Legislation cited (6)

Judicature Act Cap 13 s.6(2)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.2
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.39(1)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
Magistrates Courts Act Cap 16 s.215(4)
Magistrates Courts Act Cap 16 s.216

Cases cited (2)

Ongom John Bosco v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2007)
Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

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.