Wakilii

Botte v Dida (Civil Appeal 76 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 256 · 2025 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from magistrate's order granting conditional leave to appear and defend summary suit
Decision
Appeal struck out for want of leave of court

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 held that an order granting conditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit under Order 36 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not carry an automatic right of appeal. Such orders fall outside the scope of Order 44 rule 1 and require leave of court under Order 44 rule 2 before an appeal can be filed. The appeal was struck out as incompetent for failure to obtain leave.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for want of leave of court

Facts

The Respondent instituted a summary suit against the Appellant for recovery of UGX 4,730,000. The Appellant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 04 of 2024 seeking unconditional leave to appear and defend, arguing he never signed a loan agreement and the claim did not fall under summary procedure. The trial magistrate granted conditional leave requiring the Appellant to deposit UGX 3,000,000 with the Deputy Registrar within 15 days before filing a written statement of defence. Dissatisfied with the conditional order, the Appellant appealed to the High Court without first seeking leave of court. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Appellant had no automatic right of appeal and should have sought leave under Order 44 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant required leave of court before filing the appeal against an order granting conditional leave to appear and defend under Order 36 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether an order granting conditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit is a decree conferring an automatic right of appeal under Order 44 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Right of Appeal — Orders Under Order 36 — Requirement for Leave
An order granting conditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit under Order 36 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not confer an automatic right of appeal under Order 44 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Such orders require leave of court under Order 44 rule 2 before an appeal can be filed.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Conditional Leave to Defend — Judicial Discretion
Order 36 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules grants the presiding judicial officer discretion to issue conditional or unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit. A conditional order requiring payment into court does not amount to a decree and does not conclusively determine the rights of the parties so as to confer an automatic right of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Competence of Appeal — Statutory Right
The right of appeal is a creature of statute. In the absence of a statutory provision conferring an automatic right of appeal, a court has no power to entertain an appeal filed without leave of court.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • His Royal Highness Jude Mike Mudoma v John Amram Wagabyalire (Miscellaneous Application No. 84 of 2024)
  • Hwansung Limited v M & D Timber Merchants & Transport Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Emoru & Co Advocates v Iss Global Freight Forwarding Company Uganda SMC Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1843 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Botte v Dida (Civil Appeal 76 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 256 (5 May 2025)
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.