Wakilii

Baraza v Opio and 3 Others (Civil Appeal 13 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 125 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment dismissing suit for declaration of customary land ownership
Decision
Appeal struck out as incompetent for being filed out of time without leave

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 appeal filed more than thirty days after the record of proceedings became available to the appellant, without seeking leave for extension of time, is incompetent. Where leave is required to file an appeal out of time and such leave is not obtained, the appeal cannot be entertained. The court upheld a preliminary objection and dismissed the appeal summarily for incompetence under section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as incompetent for being filed out of time without leave

Facts

The appellant sued the respondents in the Chief Magistrate's Court claiming he was the customary owner of 35 acres of land inherited from his late father, and that the first and second respondents had unlawfully disposed of it to the third and fourth respondents. The respondents defended, claiming the first and second respondents inherited the land from their father who purchased it from the appellant's father in 1984, and the third and fourth respondents were bona fide purchasers. The trial court dismissed the appellant's suit with costs and issued a permanent injunction against him on 22 September 2022. The record of proceedings was certified on 24 March 2023, and the appellant filed his appeal on 6 June 2023, 73 days later. No application for extension of time was made.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was competent having been filed outside the statutory time limit without leave of court.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Appeal dismissed summarily.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Competence of Appeal — Failure to File Within Statutory Period
An appeal to the High Court must be entered within thirty days from the date the record of proceedings is made available to the intending appellant. Where an appeal is filed after thirty days without obtaining leave of court for extension of time, the appeal is incompetent and must be dismissed.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Extension of Time — Necessity of Leave — Consequence of Non-Compliance
Where leave is required to file an appeal out of time and such leave is not obtained, the appeal filed is incompetent and cannot be entertained by the court.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.79(1)(a)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.79(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Sekabira Herbert v Suuna Mulema and Another (HCMA No. 186 of 2022)
  • Makhangu v Kibwana [1995-1998] 1 EA 175
  • Dr. Sheikh Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Baraza v Opio and 3 Others (Civil Appeal 13 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 125 (6 March 2024)
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.