Wakilii

Bamanya Andrew Mulindwa v Namuleme Josephine and Another (Miscellaneous Application 195 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 464 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal from High Court order dismissing review application
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed for failure to demonstrate arguable grounds with real prospect of success

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 from a High Court order dismissing a review application was dismissed where the applicant failed to file a memorandum or notice of appeal showing the intended grounds of appeal. The court held that without credible evidence of the grounds on which the applicant intended to appeal, it could not determine whether there existed grounds with a real prospect of success. The right to appeal is statutory and where no absolute right exists, leave must be granted only where arguable grounds with real prospect of success are demonstrated.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed for failure to demonstrate arguable grounds with real prospect of success

Facts

The Applicant filed Miscellaneous Application 007 of 2021 seeking to review the High Court's judgment in Civil Appeal 076 of 2018. That review application was heard ex parte and dismissed. The Applicant then sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his review application to the Court of Appeal. The application was unopposed. The Respondents attended court on 11 February 2026 and sought leave to engage an advocate but filed no reply by the time of ruling. The Applicant was represented by counsel. The court noted that the order dismissing a review application is not one from which an appeal lies as of right under Section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 44 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, hence leave was required.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is competently before this court.
  2. Whether the Applicant has demonstrated arguable grounds of appeal for consideration by the Appellate Court.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Statutory Right
The right of appeal is a creature of statute and must be given expressly by statute. Where there is no such right, an appeal shall be by leave of the court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Orders Not Appealable as of Right
An order dismissing an application for review is not listed among the orders from which an appeal lies as of right under Section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 44 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. An applicant seeking to appeal such an order must obtain leave either from the High Court which made the order or from the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Test for Grant of Leave
Leave to appeal will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration. The court must balance the need to keep the administration of justice tidy by preventing frivolous and vexatious appeals against the need to protect the applicant's right of appeal and for attaining the ends of justice.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Real Prospect of Success
The prospect for success of an intended appeal must be realistic rather than fanciful. The court considering an application for leave to appeal is not required to analyse whether the grounds of the proposed appeal will succeed, but merely whether there is a real prospect of success. The court should not go into the merits of the grounds of appeal as this would amount to pre-empting the intended appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Requirement to Demonstrate Grounds
Where an applicant for leave to appeal fails to file a memorandum or notice of appeal showing the intended grounds of appeal, and instead uses the supporting affidavit to argue the merits of what should have been an appeal, the court is unable to determine whether there exist grounds of appeal with a real prospect of success and the application will be dismissed.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Uncontroverted Affidavit Evidence
Averments or facts stated under oath in an affidavit which are not denied or rebutted by the opposite party are presumed to be accepted as true. However, failure to deny or rebut the facts or averments in an application does not abdicate the court of its legal duty to consider the application on its merits.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (11)

  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen [1978] HCB 297
  • Hamam Singh Bhogal T/a Hamam Singh & Co v Jadva Karsan (1953) 20 EACA 17
  • Baku Raphael v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50
  • Dr Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
  • Sango Bay Estate v Dresdner Bank & Attorney General [1971] EA 17
  • Sbeity & Anor v Akello (Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2018)
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
  • Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
  • Kapiriri v International Investments Ltd & 5 Ors (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2014)
  • Advocates Coalition for Development Environment and 4 Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bamanya Andrew Mulindwa v Namuleme Josephine and Another (Miscellaneous Application 195 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 464 (30 April 2026)
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.