Wakilii

Bamwebehire and Another v Nareeba and 7 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 107 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 106 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against a ruling dismissing an application for review of orders adding parties to a civil suit
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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 an application for leave to appeal against a ruling that had dismissed an application for review. The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds meriting serious judicial consideration, as they had no interest in the underlying matter after being discharged as legal representatives, the review application was in substance a disguised appeal, and the trial judge's exercise of discretion in awarding costs personally against counsel was justified given the abuse of court process.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Facts

The applicants were appointed legal representatives for beneficiaries in Civil Suit No. 102 of 2009, which resulted in judgment and decree. During execution, the applicants allegedly mishandled the decretal sum, leading to disagreement with the beneficiaries. The court discharged the applicants from their representative role vide M.A. No. 224 of 2015, confirmed by M.A. No. 652 of 2017. The 1st to 7th respondents were subsequently added as parties to the suit vide M.A. No. 166 of 2017 to protect their interests and expedite execution. The applicants filed M.A. No. 138 of 2019 seeking review of the order adding the respondents as parties, which was dismissed on 14 February 2020. The trial judge found the review application was in substance a disguised appeal and ordered costs against the applicants' counsel personally for abuse of court process. The applicants then sought leave to appeal that dismissal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds for grant of leave to appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded against the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Test for Grant of Leave
Leave to appeal from an order in civil proceedings will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, but where the order sought to be appealed from was made in the exercise of judicial discretion, a rather stronger case must be made out by the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Requirement to Show Arguable Grounds
An applicant seeking leave to appeal must demonstrate arguable grounds of appeal showing where the court erred on the questions or issues raised, and such grounds must be capable of forming grounds of appeal deserving of serious consideration by the appellate court arising from the decision of the court on the controversy before it.
Civil Procedure — Review — Disguised Appeal
Where an application for review does not disclose grounds warranting review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, but instead challenges the decision of the court on its merits, the application is in effect an appeal disguised as a review application and cannot be entertained.
Civil Procedure — Locus Standi — Legal Representatives Discharged by Court Order
Where legal representatives appointed by court order to prosecute a suit on behalf of beneficiaries are subsequently discharged from that role by court order, they cease to have any interest in the matter and lack standing to challenge subsequent orders made in the suit unless they demonstrate they are beneficiaries or have some other legitimate interest.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Personal Costs Order Against Counsel
Where a court finds that an application constitutes an abuse of court process explicitly facilitated by counsel, the court may exercise its discretion under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act to order counsel to pay costs personally as a means of penalising the practice and deterring such abuse.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Lane v Esdaile (1891) AC 210
  • Ex parte Stevenson (1892) 1 QB 609
  • Incafex (U) Ltd v Kabatereine (1999) KALR 645
  • Sango Bay Estate Ltd and Others v Dresdner Bank AG [1971] EALR 17
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1996)
  • Musa Sbeity and Another v Akello Joan (HCMA No. 249 of 2018)
  • Ayebazibwe v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd and 3 Others (HCMA No. 292 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bamwebehire and Another v Nareeba and 7 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 107 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 106 (21 June 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.