Wakilii

Attorney General v Kikwanzi (Civil Application 13 of 2019; Civil Application 15 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2024] UGSC 14 · 2024 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Applications to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal and for extension of time, arising from a Court of Appeal decision refusing to validate a belatedly filed notice of appeal
Decision
Both consolidated applications dismissed for want of jurisdiction; the Court of Appeal's refusal to validate a late notice of appeal held to be an interlocutory decision not appealable to the Supreme Court

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

By a majority (3:2), the Court held that the Court of Appeal's refusal to validate a belatedly filed notice of appeal is an interlocutory decision, not the final determination of an appeal, and is therefore not appealable to the Supreme Court whether as of right or with leave. Appellate jurisdiction springs only from statute and there is no inherent right of appeal. Because no appeal lay, the application for leave to appeal (Civil Application No. 13 of 2019) could not be sustained, and the application for extension of time (Civil Application No. 15 of 2020), which arose from it, necessarily failed. Both applications were dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Facts

In 2008, police officers seized bakery machines (ovens, baking trays and tins) from the respondent's bakeries at Hoima and Kajjansi and held them at police stations, where they were damaged. The respondent sued the Attorney General in the High Court (HCCS No. 191 of 2010) for compensation, loss of income, general damages, interest and costs. Although the Attorney General filed a defence, he did not attend the trial, which proceeded ex parte. On 4 September 2017 the High Court awarded compensation for loss of business of UGX 4,000,000 per day from 2008, special damages of UGX 96,000,000, interest, general damages of UGX 20,000,000 and costs. The Attorney General filed his notice of appeal late and the Court of Appeal dismissed his applications to validate it. He then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (Civil Application No. 13 of 2019) and, on realising that application was filed out of time, sought an extension of time (Civil Application No. 15 of 2020), attributing the delay to mistake of counsel.

Issues

  1. Whether a decision of the Court of Appeal refusing to validate a belatedly filed notice of appeal is appealable to the Supreme Court, whether as of right or with leave.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court can grant leave to appeal against an interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal.
  3. Whether the late filing of Civil Application No. 13 of 2019 should be excused as occasioned by mistake of counsel, so as to justify an extension of time.

Orders

  • Civil Application No. 13 of 2019 dismissed.
  • Civil Application No. 15 of 2020 dismissed.
  • Costs of both applications awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Appellate Jurisdiction — Right of Appeal as a Creature of Statute
Appellate jurisdiction springs only from statute; there is no inherent appellate jurisdiction and no inherent right of appeal, an appeal lying only where conferred by a specific statute.
Appeals to the Supreme Court — Interlocutory Orders of the Court of Appeal
No appeal lies to the Supreme Court from interlocutory orders of the Court of Appeal that are incidental to an appeal but do not result from the final determination of the appeal itself.
Notice of Appeal — Refusal to Validate Late Filing is Interlocutory
A Court of Appeal decision refusing to validate a belatedly filed notice of appeal concerns an incidental matter relating to the competence of that notice and is an interlocutory decision, not appealable to the Supreme Court whether as of right or with leave.
Extension of Time — Application Dependent on an Unsustainable Application
An application for extension of time and validation cannot succeed where it arises from, and is dependent upon, a substantive application that is itself unsustainable for want of jurisdiction.
Ex Parte Decree — Remedies and Right of Appeal
Where an ex parte decree is entered, a defendant's remedies are to apply under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set it aside or to appeal as of right under section 67 of the Civil Procedure Act; leave to appeal under rule 39(2) of the Supreme Court Rules is not envisaged in such circumstances.
Order of Applications — Leave Must First Be Sought in the Court of Appeal
Where an application may be made either to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeal, rule 41(1) of the Supreme Court Rules requires that it first be made to the Court of Appeal, and an applicant who proceeds directly in the Supreme Court without advancing grounds under rule 41(2) files an incompetent application.

Legislation cited (20)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.132(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.44(c)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)
  • Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.4
  • Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.6(1)
  • Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.6(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.67(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.76
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 20(1)(a)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 27
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 rule 1(1)(c)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 3
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 5
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 39(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 41
  • Government Proceedings Act s.10
  • Advocates Act s.61(1)

Cases cited (24)

  • Attorney General v Shah [1971] 1 EA 50
  • Kobusingye v Nyakana and Another (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004)
  • Uganda National Examinations Board v Mparo General Contractors (Civil Application No. 19 of 2004)
  • Kasirivu Atwooki and Others v Bamurangye Bororoza and Others (Civil Application No. 2 of 2010)
  • Heritage Oil & Gas Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2021)
  • Lukwago Erias v KCCA (Civil Application No. 6 of 2014)
  • Kaderbhai and Another v Virji and Others (Civil Application No. 20 of 2008)
  • Kato and Another v Nalwoga (Civil Application No. 4 of 2012)
  • Attorney General v Lutaaya (Civil Application No. 12 of 2007)
  • Magezi v Ruparelia (Civil Application No. 10 of 2002)
  • In Re Tebajjukira and Another v Stananzi (Civil Application No. 8 of 1998)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA
  • Mulindwa v Kisubika (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • County Executive of Kisumu v County Government of Kisumu and 8 Others (Civil Application No. 3 of 2016)
  • G.M Combined (U) Ltd v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 23 of 1994)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Air 2005 SC 3304 Smt Rani Kusumu v Smt Dani
  • Essaji v Solanki [1968] EA 218
  • Boney M. Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
  • Buyungo Samuel v Nyansiana Talidda and 6 Others (Civil Application No. 12 of 2021)
  • Musoke v Departed Asians' Property Custodian Board and Another [1990-1994] 1 EA 219
  • Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd [1995-1998] 2 EA 219
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
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.