Wakilii

Bros v Bogha (Civil Appeal No. 11-1935.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1935] EACA 98 · 1935 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from an order dismissing an application under section 147 of the Registration of Titles Ordinance to remove a caveat
Decision
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction as no leave to appeal had been obtained

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

Proceedings under section 147 of the Registration of Titles Ordinance to remove a caveat are not a suit within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Ordinance. A suit is defined as proceedings commenced in the manner prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules, specifically Order 4. Since the proceedings were instituted under section 147 and not under Order 4, they do not constitute a suit. The order made is not one from which an appeal lies as of right under Order 40. Leave to appeal must first be obtained. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction as no leave to appeal had been obtained

Facts

The appellants and respondent entered into an agreement for the sale of a leasehold interest. The agreement provided that the purchase price would be payable two years after the date of agreement, with the respondent paying monthly interest at 10% per annum in the meantime. The respondent was given immediate possession and was to receive rents, paying ground rent, rates, taxes and other charges. The agreement provided that upon default in payment of interest for three consecutive months, the appellants could terminate the agreement without notice and resume possession. On 9 March 1935, the appellants purported to cancel the agreement on the ground that interest for over three months was unpaid. On 20 March 1935, the respondent lodged and registered a caveat against the appellants' title. The appellants then took out a summons under section 147 of the Registration of Titles Ordinance to have the caveat removed. The Court dismissed the application on the ground that the respondent was a tenant and the appellants had not proved demand and refusal of payment of interest by way of rent.

Issues

  1. Whether proceedings under section 147 of the Registration of Titles Ordinance constitute a suit within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Ordinance.
  2. Whether an appeal lies as of right from an order made under section 147 of the Registration of Titles Ordinance without leave.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Definition of Suit — Proceedings Under Registration of Titles Ordinance
Proceedings instituted under section 147 of the Registration of Titles Ordinance to remove a caveat are not a suit within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Ordinance, as they are not commenced in the manner prescribed by Order 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules which regulates the institution of suits.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Orders Not Appealable as of Right
An order made under section 147 of the Registration of Titles Ordinance is not an order from which an appeal lies as of right under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and leave to appeal must first be obtained from the court making the order before an appeal can be brought.
Statutory Interpretation — Definition of Suit — Civil Procedure Ordinance
Under the Civil Procedure Ordinance, a suit is defined as all proceedings commenced in any manner prescribed, where prescribed means prescribed by Rules made by the Rules Committee to regulate the procedure of Courts. Proceedings not commenced in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules do not constitute a suit.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Civil Procedure Ordinance (Uganda) s.2(4)
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance (Uganda) s.2(23)
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance (Uganda) s.66
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance (Uganda) s.75
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance (Uganda) s.76
  • Civil Procedure Rules (Uganda) O.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules (Uganda) O.40
  • Registration of Titles Ordinance (Uganda) s.147
  • Registration of Titles Ordinance (Uganda) s.195

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bros v Bogha (Civil Appeal No. 11-1935.) [1935] EACA 98 (1 January 1935)
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.