Wakilii

Sekyanzi v Prof . Wavamuno (Miscellaneous Application 37 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 28 · 2023 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for leave to file a third appeal after the Court of Appeal refused a certificate of public importance
Decision
Application for leave to appeal granted; applicant permitted to file a third appeal to the Supreme Court

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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

On an application for leave to file a third appeal after the Court of Appeal refused a certificate of public importance, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that under section 6(5) of the Judicature Act it is not restricted, like the Court of Appeal, to questions of law of great public or general importance; it may grant leave whenever, in its overall duty to see that justice is done, it considers the appeal should be heard. Given the constitutional questions under Article 237 on land ownership and bonafide occupancy, and that the applicant had stayed on inherited land for many years, the court found it just that the intended appeal be heard. The application was allowed and leave granted.

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent in the Chief Magistrates Court of Entebbe over a kibanja of about three acres at Vubufu village, Katabi sub-county, Wakiso District, which he claimed to have inherited under Ganda custom from his late father, who died in 1985. The Chief Magistrates Court held the applicant to be a bonafide occupant and ordered compensation; the High Court upheld that decision on the respondent's appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's further appeal, set aside the lower decisions, and held that a kibanja is not a customary holding under Article 237(3) of the Constitution but falls under mailo tenure recognised under Article 237(8). The applicant sought a certificate of public importance from the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was refused, prompting this application for leave to appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's intended third appeal raises one or more matters of great public or general importance warranting a grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether, in order to do justice, the Supreme Court should grant leave for the intended appeal to be heard.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Leave granted to the applicant to appeal against the Court of Appeal decision delivered on 19 June 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 240 of 2013.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Third Appeals — Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court under Judicature Act s.6(5)
In deciding whether to grant leave for a third appeal, the Supreme Court is not restricted, like the Court of Appeal, to questions of law of great public or general importance; it may grant leave whenever, in its overall duty to see that justice is done, it considers that the appeal should be heard.
Civil Procedure — Certificate of Public Importance — Meaning of a Matter of Great Public or General Importance
A matter is of great public or general importance where the question of law is sufficiently general or public in application as to need settlement or clarification by a higher appellate court, such that it may affect a considerable number of people in their rights.
Land & Property — Bonafide Occupancy — Inherited Interests and Article 237 of the Constitution
Whether a person who inherited land from a predecessor who occupied it before the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution qualifies as a bonafide occupant, and the interaction of kibanja holdings with mailo tenure under Article 237, raises a question of law warranting determination by the Supreme Court.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature Act s.6(2)
  • Judicature Act s.6(5)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, SI 13-10, Rule 39(1)(b)
  • Land Act s.29(2)(a)
  • Land Act s.29(5)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(8)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(9)

Cases cited (8)

  • Kampala District Land Board v Venansio Babweyaka (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997)
  • Hermanus Phillippus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi Ruscone (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 4 of 2010)
  • Charles Lwanga Masengere v God Kabagambe (Civil Application No. 125 of 2009)
  • Namuddu Christine v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1999)
  • Atai Hellen Doreen v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 19 of 2020)
  • Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v Kenya Export Floriculture, Horticulture and Allied Workers Union (Civil Application No. 5 of 2017)
  • Asumani Mugyenyi v M. Buwuule (Civil Application No. 245 of 2011)
  • Rex v Mohamed Shah s/o Lal Shah (1939) 6 EACA 103
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.