Wakilii

Okodel v Akol (Civil Application 16 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2021] UGSC 49 · 2021 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out a pending Supreme Court appeal as incompetent and beyond the Court's jurisdiction
Decision
Application to strike out Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2021 dismissed; the appeal to be heard on its merits

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 Supreme Court considered an application to strike out a pending appeal as incompetent and beyond its jurisdiction. Although the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant a consequential order was neither a confirmation, variation, nor reversal of the High Court's orders, the Court held that section 6(1) of the Judicature Act is directory rather than mandatory, and that the refused order formed an integral part of the reversal of the High Court judgment under the doctrine in Bantariza. The appeal was therefore competent. Whether the Court could grant the consequential orders went to the merits of the appeal and could not be decided in this application. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Facts

The respondent sought nomination to contest the Bukedea District Woman MP seat in the 2021 elections. The applicant filed Misc. Cause No. 22 of 2020 in the Soroti High Court challenging the nomination on grounds of a discrepancy between the respondent's name in the voters' register and the name she was using; the High Court barred her nomination. Relying on that order, the Returning Officer and Electoral Commission declined to nominate her, and Hon. Among Anita Annet was declared the unopposed Woman MP-elect and gazetted. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal (styled Election Petition Appeal No. 6 of 2020), which held the Soroti High Court had no jurisdiction and declared its decision a nullity, but declined to grant consequential orders degazetting Hon. Among and directing a fresh nomination, reasoning that doing so would affect a non-party denied a hearing. The respondent appealed that refusal to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2021). The applicant then brought this application to strike out that appeal as incompetent and outside the Court's jurisdiction.

Issues

  1. Whether any appeal lies from the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under the law to grant the consequential orders sought in the appeal.

Orders

  • The application fails and is dismissed.
  • Costs to be in the cause.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Right of Appeal — Creature of statute
There is no inherent appellate jurisdiction; the right of appeal must be specifically created by law and cannot be inferred or implied.
Statutory Interpretation — Section 6(1) Judicature Act — Directory or mandatory
The requirement in section 6(1) of the Judicature Act that the Court of Appeal must have confirmed, varied or reversed a High Court order before an appeal lies to the Supreme Court is directory rather than mandatory.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — New matter on appeal as continuation of original suit
Where an appellate court decides a matter raised for the first time on appeal, its decision forms an integral part of the original suit appealed from, so the appellate court's refusal of such relief is itself a determination flowing from the reversal of the trial court's judgment.
Electoral Law — Nature of proceedings — Substance over nomenclature
The character of a suit is determined by its substance and genesis, not by its name; mislabelling a miscellaneous cause as an election petition appeal does not convert it into an election petition.
Electoral Law — Finality of High Court decisions — Pre-polling nomination complaints
An appeal against an Electoral Commission decision rejecting a nomination before polling lies to the High Court, whose decision is final under section 15(4) of the Electoral Commission Act and Article 64(4) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (17)

  • Constitution Article 61(1)(f)
  • Constitution Article 64(1)
  • Constitution Article 64(4)
  • Constitution Article 126
  • Constitution Article 132(2)
  • Constitution Article 86
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.1
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.14(3)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.16
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.60
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.66(1)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.66(3)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.86
  • Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act 2010 s.14
  • Electoral Commission Act (Cap 140) s.15
  • Judicature Act s.6(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.2(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Lukwago Erias v Attorney General & KCCA (Civil Application No. 6 of 2014)
  • Baku Raphael Obudra & Obiga Kania v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Geoffrey Komakech v Rose Akol & Others (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2010)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businghye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Bantariza v Habre International Trading Co. Ltd [2000] 2 EA 315
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.