Wakilii

DFCU Bank Ltd v Kamuli (Civil Application 29 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2020] UGSC 51 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application in the Supreme Court to strike out a notice of appeal under Rule 78 on the ground that no appeal lies.
Decision
Application allowed; the respondent's notice of appeal struck out for want of a right of appeal, with costs to the applicant.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Supreme Court held that a right of appeal is a creature of statute that cannot be inferred or implied. The Court's appellate jurisdiction derives from Article 132(2) of the Constitution as prescribed by law. Section 22 of the Labour Dispute (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 2006 provides only for appeals from the Industrial Court to the Court of Appeal on a point of law, and confers no further right of appeal to the Supreme Court. That the Industrial Court exercises jurisdiction concurrent with the High Court does not make it a High Court. The respondent therefore had no right of appeal; the application was allowed and the notice of appeal struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application allowed; the respondent's notice of appeal struck out for want of a right of appeal, with costs to the applicant.

Facts

The respondent filed a labour reference in the Industrial Court claiming her termination by the applicant bank was wrongful, unfair or unlawful, and sought damages and other relief. The Industrial Court decided the matter in her favour. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2016, and on 30 October 2019 the Court of Appeal set aside the Industrial Court's judgment in the applicant's favour. On the same day the respondent lodged a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2020. The applicant then brought this application to strike out that notice of appeal, contending that no statutory right of appeal lies to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Court of Appeal exercising appellate jurisdiction over awards of the Industrial Court.

Issues

  1. Whether a right of appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Court of Appeal exercising appellate jurisdiction over awards of the Industrial Court.
  2. Whether the respondent's notice of appeal should be struck out under Rule 78 on the ground that no appeal lies.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The notice of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2020 is struck out.
  • Costs of the application to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Right of Appeal as a Creature of Statute
A right of appeal does not exist inherently; appellate jurisdiction must be specifically created by statute and cannot be inferred or implied.
Statutory Interpretation — Appellate Jurisdiction — Appeals from the Industrial Court
Section 22 of the Labour Dispute (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 2006 confers a right of appeal from the Industrial Court only to the Court of Appeal on a point of law, and creates no further right of appeal to the Supreme Court.
Employment & Labour — Industrial Court — Concurrent Jurisdiction with the High Court
The fact that the Industrial Court exercises jurisdiction concurrent with the High Court does not transform it into the High Court for the purpose of conferring appellate rights.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Notice of Appeal — Rule 78
Under Rule 78 of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, a notice of appeal may be struck out where no appeal lies, where an essential step has not been taken, or where it has not been taken within the prescribed time.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (12)

  • Attorney General v Shah (1971) EA 50
  • Justice Asaph Ruhinda Ntengye & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 33 of 2016)
  • Babcon Uganda Ltd v Mbale Resort Hotel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2012)
  • Housing Finance Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2012)
  • Baku Raphael Obudra & Obiga Kania v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • George Kasedde Mukasa & Ors v Holiday Hotel Ltd & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2019)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Pius Nuwagaba v Law Development Centre (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2006)
  • Pepper v Hart [1993] 1 All ER 42
  • NPART v Kapeeka Coffee Ltd & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2001)
  • Quinn v Leatham [1901] AC 495
  • Zubeda Mohamed & Anor v Wallia & Anor (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

DFCU Bank Ltd v Kamuli (Civil Application 29 of 2019) [2020] UGSC 51 (7 December 2020)
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.