Uganda Peoples Congress & Another v Kakonge (Civil Application 19 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 72 · 2023 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders of the Court of Appeal, filed directly without first obtaining leave of the Court of Appeal

Decision

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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

An application that may be made to either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court must first be made to the Court of Appeal; Rule 41(2) permits direct filing only where the applicant shows good cause and exceptional circumstances. Although the dispute initially had a bearing on the 2021 elections, the interlocutory orders restraining the party's bank accounts and delegates' conference lapsed when the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2016 on 7 September 2020, so no exceptional circumstances remained. The Court further held that no right of appeal lies to the Supreme Court from interlocutory orders of the Court of Appeal incidental to, but not resulting from, final determination. The preliminary objections succeeded; leave was declined and the application dismissed with costs.

Facts

In 2015, the Vice President of the Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC), Prof. Kakonge and another filed for judicial review challenging the election of James Akena as UPC President-elect. The High Court (Nyanzi J) declared Akena's election void and illegal for violating the UPC Constitution and issued certiorari against UPC. UPC and its Electoral Commission appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2016) and obtained interim orders, which the Court of Appeal maintained, also staying the party's delegates' conference and barring operation of UPC bank accounts pending the appeal. Prof. Kakonge was substituted for the deceased original applicant. Dissatisfied with the interlocutory orders, UPC and its Electoral Commission applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against those orders without first seeking leave of the Court of Appeal, asserting exceptional circumstances linked to the 2021 elections. The Court of Appeal had since delivered judgment in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2016 on 7 September 2020, declaring Akena's presidency null and void, whereupon the contested orders lapsed.

Issues

Whether an application for leave to appeal that may be made to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal could competently be filed directly in the Supreme Court without first applying to the Court of Appeal.
Whether exceptional circumstances existed bringing the application within the exception in Rule 41(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Whether a right of appeal lies to the Supreme Court from interlocutory orders of the Court of Appeal.
Whether the application was moot and overtaken by events.

Orders

The Respondent's preliminary objections succeed.
Leave sought by the Applicants is declined.
The application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Right of Appeal as a Creature of Statute

There is no inherent right of appeal; the right of appeal is a creature of statute and must be conferred expressly by statute.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Interlocutory Orders of the Court of Appeal

No right of appeal lies to the Supreme Court from interlocutory orders of the Court of Appeal that are incidental to the appeal and do not result from its final determination; the Court of Appeal's decision in such interlocutory matters is final.

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Rule 41 — Application to be Made to the Court of Appeal First

Where an application may be made either to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, it must first be made to the Court of Appeal; Rule 41(2) permits direct filing in the Supreme Court only where the applicant was aware of the general rule and shows good cause amounting to exceptional circumstances.

Civil Procedure — Mootness — Lapse of Interlocutory Orders on Final Judgment

Where the interlocutory orders sought to be appealed lapse upon delivery of the final judgment, any exceptional circumstances that might have justified direct filing in the Supreme Court fall away and the application is rendered moot.

Legislation cited (9)

Judicature Act s.6(1)
Judicature Act s.6(2)
Judicature Act s.78
Constitution of Uganda Article 132(2)
Constitution of Uganda Article 132(3)
Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 39(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 41(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 41(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 6(2)(b)

Cases cited (8)

Dr Kasiriwu Atwooki and Others v Grace Bamurangye Bororoza and Others (Civil Application No. 2 of 2010)
Uganda National Examinations Board v Mpora General Contractors (Civil Application No. 19 of 2004)
Beatrice Kobusingye v Fiona Nyakana and Another (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004)
Attorney General v Kwizera and Electoral Commission v Kwizera (Consolidated Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2020)
Lukwago Erias v KCCA (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2014)
Attorney General v Shah (No. 4 of 1971 EACA 50)
Baku Raphael v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
Sanyu Lwanga Musoke v Sam Galiwango (Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1995)

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.