Wakilii

Ayena & 20 Others v Ondia & 6 Others (Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2017)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 425 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against an interlocutory ruling in Misc Cause No. 008 of 2016 arising from HCCS No. 006 of 2011
Decision
Application for leave to appeal refused

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

An application for leave to appeal must demonstrate substantial questions of law and arguable grounds that merit serious judicial consideration. The court held that the applicant failed to establish any arguable point of law showing a realistic prospect that the trial court erred or that the ruling could be overturned on appeal. Matters relating solely to exercise of judicial discretion without raising questions of law do not warrant leave to appeal. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal refused

Facts

In 2011, a representative suit was filed by two applicants on behalf of 69,000 claimants seeking compensation for livestock, which resulted in judgment. Disputes arose regarding distribution of compensation, with the applicants alleging that the representative plaintiffs and lawyers refused to pay beneficiaries. Respondents (who applicants alleged were aliens to the original suit) obtained orders restraining applicants from interfering with execution. The trial judge (Justice Winfred Nabisinde) dismissed the applicants' challenge in Misc Cause No. 008 of 2016. Applicants then sought leave to appeal, alleging bias, fraud, collusion, use of aliens to the suit, and improper conduct by advocates. The applicants had previously filed an application for recusal which was dismissed, and subsequently filed an application for judicial review before Justice Ajiji which was also dismissed.

Issues

  1. Whether there are matters of law in the ruling to be considered by an Appellate Court

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Applicant not granted leave to appeal against the ruling in Miscellaneous Cause No. 008 of 2016.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Test for Granting Leave
An application for leave to appeal must show that the application bears substantial questions of law to be decided by the appellate court and that the applicant has a bonafide and arguable case on appeal. Leave will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Arguable Point of Law
An arguable point must relate to the ruling of the court showing that there is a possibility that the court erred in law and there is a chance to have it overturned on appeal. The prospect for success must be realistic rather than fanciful.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Exercise of Discretion
Where the question relates only to exercise of discretion and not to a question of law, leave to appeal should generally be refused. An appellate court can only interfere with the exercise of discretion in very exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Nabossa Aisha & Another v Binyerere Emmanuel (Commercial Court Civil Application No. 13 of 2015)
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd & Others v Dresdner Bank [1971] EA 17
  • Wanzala Enterprises Ltd v Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd (HCMA No. 946 of 2016)
  • Nabossa & Another v Binyerere (HCCA No. 13 of 2015)
  • Herbert Sekandi t/a Land Order Developers v Crane Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 44 of 2007)
  • Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ayena & 20 Others v Ondia & 6 Others (Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2017) [2023] UGHC 425 (22 November 2023)
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.