A. K. P. M. Lutaaya v Attorney General (Civil Reference 1 of 2007)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

On a reference from a single Justice who had granted the Attorney General leave to appeal out of time, the full Court held that a reference under Rule 52 must be made informally orally or by written application to the Registrar on the existing record, not by notice of motion with fresh affidavit evidence, and ordered that this commonly-practised but erroneous procedure be discontinued. On the merits, the Court held that striking out the earlier application for want of a valid supporting affidavit was not a decision on the merits, so the single Judge did not exhaust his powers and was not functus officio when he heard the later, properly supported application. The reference was dismissed and the single Judge's order confirmed.

Outcome

Reference dismissed; order of the single Judge granting the respondent leave to institute the appeal out of time confirmed, with thirty days to institute the appeal

Facts

The applicant had sued the Attorney General in the High Court alleging trespass and wrongful acts by UPDF soldiers on his land. After a series of decisions, the Court of Appeal in December 2005 enhanced his damages and awarded interest and costs. The Attorney General filed a notice of appeal but, through a succession of errors in the Attorney General's Chambers — including the resignation of the State Attorney handling the file without proper handover — failed to take the steps to institute the appeal in time. An earlier application for extension of time (Civil Application No. 1 of 2007) was struck out because the supporting affidavit was unsworn. A fresh application (Civil Application No. 12 of 2007), supported by a properly sworn affidavit, was then granted by the single Judge, who allowed the respondent to institute the appeal out of time. The applicant referred that order to the full Court, contending principally that the single Judge was functus officio.

Issues

1. Whether a reference under Rule 52 of the Supreme Court Rules may properly be made by notice of motion accompanied by additional affidavit evidence.
2. Whether the single Judge became functus officio, and so could not hear Civil Application No. 12 of 2007, after striking out an earlier application (Civil Application No. 1 of 2007) on the same subject for being unsupported by a valid affidavit.

Orders

• Decision of the single Judge confirmed.
• Respondent granted thirty (30) days within which to institute the appeal.
• Costs of the reference to abide the decision of the Court in the intended appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature Act s.8(2)
• Supreme Court Rules Rule 52
• Supreme Court Rules Rule 42
• Supreme Court Rules Rule 43
• Eastern Africa Court of Appeal Rules 1954 Rule 19

Cases cited (4)

• Motor Mart (U) Ltd v Yona Kanyomozi (Civil Application No. 6 of 1999)
• Kabogere Coffee Factory Ltd and Hajji Bruhan Mugerwa v Hajji Twaibu Kigongo (Civil Application No. 10 of 1993)
• Meru Farmers v A. A. Sulaiman [1966] EA 449
• Crane Finance Company Ltd v Makerere Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2001)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Nakivumbi Sandrah Lugobe and Others v Morine Kabuga a.k.a Mary Nakiganda and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 661 of 2022)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.