Wakilii

Chepteka Samuel v Mangusho A. Shadrack (Civil Appeal No. 113 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 128 · 2026 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from a High Court decision affirming a Magistrate's dismissal of a customary land ownership suit
Decision
Appeal struck out as incompetent; costs of the appeal to the respondent

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 Court held that, on a second appeal, sections 72(1) and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act confine its jurisdiction to questions of law, and it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they were based on no evidence, a misapprehension of the evidence, or wrong principles. Ground 1 was incurably general and offended rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The remaining grounds, though labelled "erred in law and fact", in substance attacked the lower courts' factual findings on the ownership of customary land and so raised no distinct point of law. The appeal was therefore incompetent and struck out, with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as incompetent; costs of the appeal to the respondent

Facts

The dispute concerned ownership of customary land at Lulwo Village, Riwo Sub-county, Bukwo District. The appellant claimed his father, Chepteka, acquired and settled on the then-wilderness land in the 1940s; that the family lived there until about 1962, when Pokot raids forced them to flee to Kenya; and that on returning in 2007 they resumed possession but found the respondent's family claiming the same land. He relied on proceedings before the LCI and a committee of elders said to have resolved the dispute in his favour. The respondent contended the land was his family's ancestral land, with occupation traced to the 1920s, and that the appellant's family arrived later from Kenya and were only permitted temporary occupancy. The trial Magistrate, after visiting the locus in quo, accepted the respondent's earlier claim and dismissed the suit, making no order as to costs. The High Court, sitting as first appellate court, re-examined the record, found no misdirection occasioning a miscarriage of justice, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the second appeal was competent given that this Court's jurisdiction on a second appeal in civil matters is limited to questions of law.
  2. Whether the grounds of appeal raised distinct questions of law or merely invited the Court to re-evaluate concurrent findings of fact.
  3. Whether Ground 1, framed in vague and general terms, complied with rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Orders

  • The appeal is incompetent and is struck out.
  • The respondent shall have the costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Jurisdiction Confined to Questions of Law
On a second appeal under sections 72(1) and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court of Appeal does not sit as a further court for a general reconsideration of the facts; its jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the first appellate court misdirected itself in law, applied a wrong legal principle, failed to determine a material question of law, or reached a conclusion disclosing an error of law.
Civil Procedure — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Limits of Appellate Interference
An appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the courts below unless it is shown that the findings were based on no evidence, were arrived at on a misapprehension of the evidence, or were reached in disregard of applicable legal principles.
Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Rule 86(1) — Vague and General Grounds
A ground of appeal must comply with rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules by stating briefly and under separate headings the specific point claimed to have been wrongly decided; a ground framed in vague and general terms, which does not identify the distinct point of law disputed, is invalid and liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Grounds Attacking Evaluation of Evidence
Grounds prefaced with the phrase "erred in law and fact" but which in substance attack the evaluation of oral and documentary evidence raise questions of fact, or at best mixed questions of law and fact, and do not bring a second appeal within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Sembuya v Palel (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Kawanga Ssemogerere v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Chepteka Samuel v Mangusho A. Shadrack (Civil Appeal No. 113 of 2017) [2026] UGCA 128 (13 April 2026)
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.