Apollo Bright Bweyakye and Others v Professor Sam Tulya-Muhika (Civil Application 239 of 2023)

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 an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal held that Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations bars an advocate who is a witness from appearing in the matter, not from deponing an affidavit where the advocate is not in personal conduct of the case; the preliminary objection to the affidavit in reply was overruled. The intended appeal, arising from a land dispute, raised serious questions of public importance meriting determination by the Supreme Court. The applicants' follow-ups to have the application signed and fixed showed they were not guilty of dilatory conduct. Leave to appeal was granted, with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Outcome

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court granted; costs to abide the outcome of the appeal

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit 046 of 2015 at the High Court at Kabale against the applicants, administrators of the estate of the late Saulo Bweyakye, seeking orders that they sign transfer and mutation forms for 27.3 acres he claimed to have purchased from a beneficiary. The suit was dismissed on 21 January 2019 as time-barred. The respondent filed a Notice of Appeal 35 days later without leave, then filed a fresh suit (Civil Suit 024 of 2019) which was also dismissed. He later filed Civil Application No. 100 of 2020 seeking to file the record of appeal out of time, which the Court of Appeal granted on 29 May 2023. The applicants, aggrieved by that grant, applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending there was no valid notice of appeal. The respondent opposed, alleging the applicants' delay in serving the application amounted to dilatory conduct.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply, deponed by an advocate at the respondent's firm, is defective, incompetent and illegal.
2. Whether the application discloses the existence of prima facie grounds of appeal which merit serious consideration by the Supreme Court.
3. Whether the applicants are guilty of dilatory conduct disentitling them to leave to appeal.

Orders

• The preliminary objection to the respondent's affidavit in reply is overruled.
• The application is allowed and leave is granted to the applicants to appeal to the Supreme Court against the ruling and orders of the Court of Appeal in Civil Application No. 100 & 103 of 2020.
• Costs shall abide the outcome of that appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Judicature Act, Cap 16 s.33
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.40
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.41
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.38
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.76(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.76(2)
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations S.I 267-2 reg.9
• Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11(d)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.3 r.1

Cases cited (11)

• Herbert Semakula Musoke & Anor v Laurence Nsamba & 2 others (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2019)
• Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
• Kananura Andrew Kansiime v Richard Henry Kaijuka (Civil Reference No. 15 of 2016)
• Kabogere Coffee Factory v Haji Tutalib Kigongo (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1993)
• Livingstone Kagaga Kizito v Charles Waligo (Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2012)
• Bank One Limited v Simba'nnango Estates Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
• Attorney General of Uganda v Media Legal Defence Initiative & 19 others (Appeal No. 3 of 2016)
• Shah v Attorney General [1971] EA 50
• Scrngo Bay Estates Ltd & Ors Vs Dresdner Bank A.G (1972) EA 77
• Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
• Namuddu v Rwebuganda Godfrey (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2015)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Ssemakula Godfrey and Another v Najjuka Jalia Shalom (Miscellaneous Application No. 313 of 2025)
• Veronica Athago and Another v Obbo Christopher (Miscellaneous Application No. 387 of 2023)
• Visare Uganda Limited v KCB Bank (U) Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 1425 of 2023; Civil Appeal No. 294 of 2024; Civil Application No. 0420 of 2023; Civil Application No. 409

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