Celtel Uganda Limited t a Zain Uganda v Karungi (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013)

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 upheld the respondent's preliminary objection and struck out the entire appeal as incompetent. Grounds 2 to 5 were grounds of mixed law and fact and, on a second civil appeal, sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act permit only points of law; the appellant had been given but did not use the opportunity to amend them into pure law grounds. Ground 1, alleging failure to evaluate evidence, was too general and did not specify the points alleged to have been wrongly decided, contravening the mandatory requirement of Rule 86(1) of the Court's Rules. The Court upheld the decision of the first appellate court and awarded costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as incompetent; decision of the first appellate court upheld

Facts

The appellant was a telecom service provider and the respondent its customer. In 2009 the appellant issued a printout of the respondent's mobile telephone call activity (December 2008 to March 2009) to a third party, purportedly on the authority of a court order. The respondent sued in the Chief Magistrate's Court alleging breach of confidence, trust and privacy, contending the court order was unauthentic and that her then husband had used the printout to evict her on suspicion of an extra-marital affair, causing the breakdown of her marriage. The trial Chief Magistrate found the order unauthentic, that the appellant had been negligent in verifying it, and awarded special damages of UGX 7,000,000, general damages of UGX 3,000,000 and punitive damages of UGX 1,000,000 with interest. On first appeal the High Court substantially upheld the decision but set aside the punitive damages award. The appellant brought a second appeal to the Court of Appeal, which the respondent met with a preliminary objection challenging the competence of all grounds.

Issues

1. Whether ground 1 of the appeal complied with Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal requiring grounds to specify the points alleged to have been wrongly decided.
2. Whether grounds 2 to 5, being grounds of mixed law and fact, were competent on a second appeal under sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

• Ground 1 of the appeal struck out for contravening Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal.
• Grounds 2, 3, 4 and 5 struck out as wrong in law for raising matters of mixed law and fact.
• The whole appeal rendered incompetent and struck out.
• The decision of the first appellate court upheld.
• Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71 s.72(1)
• Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71 s.74
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.86(1)
• Supreme Court Rules r.82(1)

Cases cited (4)

• Ranchobhai Shivabhai Patel Ltd and Another v Wambuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017)
• Lubanga Jamada v Dr. Ddumba Edward (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011)
• Lubanga Jamada v Dr. Ddumba Edward [2016] UGCA 11
• Kulabiraawo v Nalubega (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2002)

Cases citing this judgment (14)

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.

• Edward Rubanga v Bashasha & Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 258 of 2018)
• Eloku James and Others v Dudu Yusuf (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2024)
• Egessa Francis v Sheraz Anwar Investments Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2024)
• Senyonjo Dick v Delta Petroleum (Uganda) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 181 of 2023)
• Sembatya Francis v Kamira Robinah (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2023) followed
• Nsubuga v Kawuulu Maize Millers SMC Ltd (Civil Appeal 101 of 2023)
• Mademaga v Dudua & Another (Civil Appeal 27 of 2019) followed
• Angunia & 2 Others v Joma (Civil Appeal 18 of 2022)
• Matovu and Another v Anango and 16 Others (Civil Appeal 102 of 2023)
• Egeu and Another v Otukei and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 41 of 2018)
• Busiku v Mafabi (Civil Appeal 66 of 2023)
• Bob Chule v Gawaya (Civil Appeal 105 of 2019)
• Otim and 2 Others v Iriama and Another (Civil Appeal 66 of 2022)
• Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Co (LAFICO) v Southern Investments Limited (Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2014)

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