Wakilii

Bridge Investments Limited v Middles East Hospital and Shopping Complex Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 300 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time and leave to appeal from interlocutory ruling
Decision
Leave to appeal granted and time extended

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

Held that leave to appeal will be granted where prima facie there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration. The applicant's contention that the court awarded a sum less than what had been admitted by the respondent raised an arguable ground with real prospects of success. The grant of leave was necessary to protect the applicant's right of appeal and to attain the ends of justice. Application allowed.

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted and time extended

Facts

The applicant filed a joint application seeking extension of time within which to file an application for leave to appeal and leave to appeal against a ruling delivered on 27 January 2016 in Miscellaneous Application No. 634 of 2015. The ruling arose from High Court Civil Suit No. 99 of 2016 (originally Nakawa file 353 of 2013). After the ruling was delivered, the applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 116 of 2016 for review on 25 February 2016. The High Court at Nakawa was subsequently phased out and the file was transferred to the Civil Division with a new case number. The review application came up for hearing on 19 November 2018, at which point the court advised the applicant to file an appeal instead of seeking review. The applicant withdrew the review application and filed the present application. The applicant's grounds for appeal concerned whether the court erred in awarding a sum less than what had been admitted by the respondent and whether costs should have been in the cause.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to grant leave to appeal against the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 634 of 2015.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The applicants are granted leave to file the appeal.
  • Time to lodge the appeal is accordingly granted.
  • No order as to costs.

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.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Real Prospect of Success
A real prospect of success means that the prospect for success must be realistic rather than fanciful. The court considering a request for permission is not required to analyse whether the grounds of the proposed appeal will succeed, but merely whether there is a real prospect of success.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Grounds for Grant
Leave to appeal will be given where the court considers that the appeal would have a prospect of success or there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including where the grant of leave is necessary to protect the applicant's right of appeal and for attaining the ends of justice.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Sango Bay Estate vs Dresdner Bank & Attorney General
  • Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bridge Investments Limited v Middles East Hospital and Shopping Complex Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 300 (12 July 2019)
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.