Angunia & 2 Others v Joma (Civil Appeal 18 of 2022)

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.

Holding

The High Court struck out the appeal on a preliminary objection. The sole ground of appeal was too general and verbose, offending Order 43 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules which require grounds to be concise and specific. The ground merely alleged failure to properly evaluate evidence without pinpointing exact errors, constituting an impermissible fishing expedition. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on preliminary objection for non-compliance with Civil Procedure Rules

Facts

The respondent sued the appellants in the Grade 1 Magistrate's Court claiming customary ownership of approximately 30 acres of land in Arua District and alleging trespass by the appellants. The appellants contended they were the rightful customary owners having inherited from their forefathers. The trial magistrate found for the respondent, declaring him the lawful owner, finding the appellants had trespassed, granting a permanent injunction and eviction order, and awarding general damages of UGX 3,000,000 plus interest and costs. The appellants appealed to the High Court. Their memorandum of appeal contained only one ground alleging the trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate evidence and came to a wrong decision.

Issues

1. Whether the ground of appeal raised by the appellants complies with Order 43 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules requiring grounds to be set forth concisely and with specificity.

Orders

• Ground of appeal struck off for being too general and offending Order 43 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 Rule 2

Cases cited (7)

• Kifamutwe Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. [X] of 2007)
• Lovinsa Nankya v Nsibambi (1980) HCB 81
• Katumba Byaruhanga v Edward Kyewalabye Musoke (Court of Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
• Attorney General v Florence Baliraine (Court of Appeal No. 79 of 2003)
• Celtel Uganda Limited t/a Zain Uganda v Karungi (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013)
• Rachobai Shivbhai Patel Ltd and Another v Henry Wambuga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017)
• Okot and Others v Lamoo (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2018)

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