Wakilii

Acumo v Ejabu and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2019)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 47 · 2021 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from dismissal of contempt application by Grade 1 Magistrate's Court at Kaberamaido
Decision
Appeal dismissed as incompetent for failure to seek leave to appeal as required by Order 44 rules 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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 High Court dismissed the appeal as incompetent for want of jurisdiction. The court held that an appeal from a dismissal order of contempt proceedings is not listed under Order 44 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules as an appeal lying as of right. Leave to appeal must first be sought either from the court making the order or from the appellate court. The appellant failed to seek leave from either court before filing the appeal, rendering the appeal incompetent and depriving the High Court of jurisdiction to hear it.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as incompetent for failure to seek leave to appeal as required by Order 44 rules 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Facts

The appellant's deceased mother, Aoko Norah, successfully sued the respondents in 2012 for trespass on land and obtained judgment ejecting them. After execution, vacant possession was handed over. Following Aoko Norah's death, the respondents re-entered the suit land and erected structures. The appellant filed contempt proceedings in the Magistrate's Court, which were dismissed on grounds that the appellant was not the legal representative of the deceased and had no right to bring the application. The appellant appealed to the High Court without first seeking leave to appeal from either the trial court or the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to appeal was required before instituting an appeal from a dismissal order of contempt proceedings.
  2. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal without prior leave having been sought and granted.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Appellant advised to follow the requirements of Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules accordingly.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Requirement for Leave from Interlocutory Orders
An appeal does not lie from any order except with the leave of the court which made the order or of the court to which the appeal would lie if such leave was granted, and an application for leave to appeal is required in the first instance to be lodged with the court which made the order from which the appeal is sought.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Jurisdiction of Appellate Court — Effect of Failure to Seek Leave
Where leave to appeal is required by law but has not been sought and granted, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and such failure cannot be cured by the inherent powers of the court under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Orders Not Listed Under Order 44 Rule 1 — Dismissal of Contempt Application
A dismissal order of contempt proceedings is not listed under Order 44 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules as an order from which an appeal lies as of right, and therefore leave to appeal must be sought before instituting an appeal from such an order.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Deo Mwasa v Don Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2011)
  • Heritage Oil & Gas Ltd vs Uganda Revenue Authority
  • Kilama Tonny & Another v Grace Perpetua Otim (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Acumo v Ejabu and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCD 47 (8 July 2021)
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.