Wakilii

Murisa Amos v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2026] UGSC 10 · 2026 Judgment Set Aside ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, determined on a preliminary point of law raised by the Court on its own motion.
Decision
Court of Appeal judgment declared a nullity and set aside; matter remitted to the Court of Appeal for a fresh hearing.

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, on its own motion, raised a preliminary point of law on the validity of a Court of Appeal judgment signed by only two of the three justices who heard the appeal, the third (Owiny-Dollo) having been elevated to Chief Justice before signing. Following Attorney General v Geoffrey Kazinda [2026] UGSC 5, the Court held that the quorum of an uneven number of at least three justices under Article 135(1) must be maintained at decision-making; a coram member's failure to sign the unitary judgment, leaving the panel below the prescribed quorum, is a fatal jurisdictional defect that Article 126(2)(e) cannot cure. The judgment was a nullity, set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh hearing.

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent in the High Court for damages for malicious prosecution and succeeded; the Court of Appeal set that decision aside and dismissed the suit, finding reasonable and probable cause for the criminal proceedings. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court raised, on its own motion, a preliminary point concerning the validity of the Court of Appeal's judgment. The appeal there had been heard by three justices (Owiny-Dollo DCJ, Kakuru and Madrama JJA), but the unitary judgment was signed by only Kakuru and Madrama JJA. Owiny-Dollo did not sign because, by the time the judgment was ready, he had been elevated to Chief Justice and had ceased to be a member of the Court of Appeal. The signed judgment thus issued from fewer than the three justices who heard the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the unitary judgment of the Court of Appeal was valid, having been signed by only two of the three justices who heard the appeal, the third justice having ceased to be a member of the Court before the judgment was delivered.

Orders

  • The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2018 is invalid and is set aside.
  • The file for Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2018 shall be returned to the Court of Appeal for a fresh hearing to be conducted with urgency.
  • No order is made as to costs.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Courts — Quorum of the Court of Appeal under Article 135(1)
The Court of Appeal is duly constituted in a civil appeal only if it consists of an uneven number of not fewer than three justices, and that quorum must be maintained both during the hearing and at decision-making.
Civil Procedure — Judgments — Signing of unitary judgment — Jurisdictional defect
Where a member of the coram fails to sign a unitary judgment or furnish a signed separate opinion, and this leaves the panel below the constitutionally prescribed quorum, the judgment suffers a fatal jurisdictional defect and is a nullity.
Constitutional Law — Substantive justice — Limits of Article 126(2)(e)
The principle of administering substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities under Article 126(2)(e) cannot be invoked to bypass a constitutional provision prescribing the quorum of an appellate court.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.135(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.33(5)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.203(e)
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.203(a)
  • Penal Code Act s.269
  • Penal Code Act s.87

Cases cited (4)

  • Attorney General v Geoffrey Kazinda [2026] UGSC 5
  • Hassan Basajjabalaba and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2018)
  • Sarah Kulata Basangwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2018)
  • Komakech Geoffrey v Rose Akol Okullo and Another (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2010)
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.