Butera Edward v Mutalemwa Godfrey (Civil Application No. 0391 of 2017)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for a certificate of importance to lodge a third appeal to the Supreme Court. It held that the questions raised by the applicant — whether general damages may be awarded in a suit commenced under Order 36 summary procedure (which becomes an ordinary suit once leave to defend is granted), whether unpleaded relief may be granted, and whether relief may be obtained from an illegality — were already settled by binding Supreme Court precedent and were not matters of great public or general importance. Mere apprehension that the Court of Appeal reached a wrong result is not a proper basis for certification.

Outcome

Application for a certificate of importance dismissed; no order as to costs

Facts

The respondent had sued the applicant in the Chief Magistrate's Court by summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking recovery of UGX 4,500,000 in rent arrears, vacant possession of the premises and costs. The applicant was granted unconditional leave to file a defence and the suit proceeded to hearing without an amended plaint. The trial Magistrate awarded the respondent UGX 5,000,000 in general damages for the inconvenience of not using the premises. The High Court upheld the decision on first appeal, and the Court of Appeal upheld it on second appeal (Civil Appeal No. 0114 of 2013). Aggrieved, the applicant sought a certificate of importance to mount a third appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that questions concerning general damages under summary procedure, grant of unpleaded relief, relief from illegality and relief of ownership without defined interests were of great public or general importance.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant's intended third appeal to the Supreme Court concerns a matter of law of great public or general importance warranting a certificate of importance.
2. Whether the question of awarding general damages under Order 36 summary procedure, or relief not pleaded, raises a matter of great public or general importance.
3. Whether the question of obtaining relief from an illegality raises a matter of great public or general importance.

Orders

• The application is dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.6(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.40(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.41
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.43(1)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.39(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.36 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules O.36 r.10
• Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.1(g)
• Kampala Markets Bye-Laws 1974 s.23
• Constitution of Uganda Article 163(4)(b)

Cases cited (11)

• Namuddu Christine v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1999)
• Hermanus Phillippus Steyn vs Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone, Application No.4 of 2010 (Supreme Court of Kenya)
• Hanani Moezali v Moez Ramani (Civil Suit No. 416 of 2001)
• Fang Min v Belex Tours and Travel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
• Attorney General v Paul Ssemogerere & Zachary Olum (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2004)
• Julius Rwabinumi v Hope Bahimbisimwe (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009)
• Hotel International Ltd v Administrator of the Estate of Robert Kavuma (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1995)
• Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd V Grand Imperial Hotel Ltd
• Makula International Ltd v. His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor [1982] HCB 11
• Sinba (K) Ltd & 4 others v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
• R v. Hinse [1995] 4 S.C.R 597

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Mwebe v Ankole Original Traders & Another (Civil Suit 106 of 2003)

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