Wakilii

Dowoodi Bohora Jamaat Corporation Kampala v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (Civil Application 70 of 1999)

Court of Appeal · [2000] UGCA 36 · 2000 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a ruling of the Court of Appeal, with an informal application for extension of time.
Decision
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court granted; application for extension of time rejected.

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 of Appeal held that, under rule 38(2)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules Directions 1996, where an appeal from the High Court formerly lay to the Supreme Court with leave, the same requirement applies to appeals from the Court of Appeal. Since the decision arose from a rule not covered under Order 40 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, leave was necessary and the application was properly brought. The Court was satisfied that the preliminary objections raised legal questions on which higher-court opinion was warranted, and granted leave. The informal application for extension of time was rejected as misconceived, such applications being made to a single judge under rule 4.

Outcome

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court granted; application for extension of time rejected.

Facts

The applicant was the plaintiff and the respondent the defendant in High Court Civil Suit No. 1308 of 1998. The applicant obtained a High Court order to amend its pleadings by substituting the Registered Trustees of Dowoodi Bohora Jamaat Corporation as plaintiff. The respondent, aggrieved, sought leave from the High Court to appeal, which was dismissed. The respondent then filed Civil Application No. 37 of 1999 in the Court of Appeal seeking leave to appeal against the High Court ruling. At the hearing of that application, the applicant raised three preliminary objections concerning competence, waiver of the right to appeal, and the competence of an affidavit. The Court of Appeal overruled all three objections with costs. The applicant then brought the present application seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against that ruling, and informally applied for an extension of time to lodge the intended appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether leave is required to appeal to the Supreme Court against a Court of Appeal ruling overruling preliminary objections.
  2. Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the merits.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal (full court) may grant an extension of time within which to lodge the intended appeal.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal allowed.
  • Leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Civil Application No. 37 of 1999 granted to the applicant.
  • Application for extension of time within which to lodge the intended appeal rejected.
  • Costs of this application to abide the result of the intended appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal from Court of Appeal to Supreme Court
Under rule 38(2)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules Directions 1996, where an appeal formerly lay from the High Court to the Supreme Court with leave, the same requirement of leave applies to appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court; consequently leave is necessary for an appeal arising from a rule not covered under Order 40 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Statutory Interpretation — Right of Appeal — Constitutional and Statutory Limits
The requirement of leave imposed by rule 38(2) of the Supreme Court Rules on the right of appeal to the Supreme Court from a class of Court of Appeal decisions is consistent with Article 132(2) of the Constitution and section 5 of the Judicature Statute, since such limitation is prescribed by law.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Threshold of Arguable Legal Questions
Leave to appeal will be granted where the matters in issue raise legal questions on which views may differ and on which the opinion of a higher court is necessary.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Jurisdiction of Single Judge
An application for extension of time is made to a single judge under rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules; rule 40(2), empowering a court to make a consequential extension of time after granting leave, applies to the Supreme Court and not to the Court of Appeal, so such an application before the full Court of Appeal is misconceived.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Supreme Court Rules Directions 1996 r.38(2)(a)
  • Supreme Court Rules Directions 1996 r.40(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules Directions 1996 r.41(1) and (2)
  • Supreme Court Rules Directions 1996 r.42(1) and (4)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.40 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.40 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.10
  • Civil Procedure Act s.82
  • Judicature Statute No. 13 of 1996 s.5
  • Judicature Statute No. 13 of 1996 s.11
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 132(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.39(1)(a)

Cases cited (1)

  • the It Vs n mrnerc B Civil A No.1 6Ao 1984

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dowoodi Bohora Jamaat Corporation Kampala v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (Civil Application 70 of 1999) [2000] UGCA 36 (6 January 2000)
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.