Wakilii

Dr. James Akampumuza v Makerere University Business School and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 310 of 2013)

High Court · [2015] UGHCCD 445 · 2015 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory ruling on application for leave to appeal and determination of timing for raising preliminary points of law in judicial review proceedings
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; matter to proceed with completion of cross-examination and re-examination as directed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 court dismissed the respondents' application for leave to appeal against a procedural direction requiring completion of cross-examination before entertaining preliminary points of law. The timing of preliminary objections is a procedural matter within the trial judge's discretion under Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 28 and does not raise substantial points of law meriting appellate review. The respondents had multiple earlier opportunities to raise objections but instead elected to cross-examine the applicant.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; matter to proceed with completion of cross-examination and re-examination as directed

Facts

Dr. Akampumuza filed a judicial review application in August 2013. After pleadings closed, the court directed written submissions. The respondents instead applied to cross-examine the applicant under Rule 9 of the Judicial Review Rules. Cross-examination commenced on 22 May 2014 but was not completed when the law firm representing the 1st, 2nd and 5th respondents split. New counsel took over and was granted an adjournment. On 26 August 2015, when cross-examination was to resume, the respondents' new counsel sought to raise four preliminary points of law without prior notice. The court directed that cross-examination be completed first, then submissions on points of law would follow. The respondents applied for leave to appeal this procedural direction.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to appeal should be granted against a procedural direction ordering that preliminary points of law be raised after completion of cross-examination
  2. At what stage preliminary points of law should be raised and considered in judicial review proceedings

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Cross-examination of the applicant closed.
  • Counsel for the applicant directed to re-examine the applicant and close their case.
  • Respondents to be cross-examined and re-examined thereafter.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Timing — Discretion of Trial Judge
The timing of when preliminary points of law should be raised and considered is a procedural matter within the discretion of the trial judge under Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 28, which provides that any point of law may be disposed of by the court at or after the hearing.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Frivolous Appeals
Leave to appeal from an interlocutory order is required to prevent frivolous and needless appeals. A procedural direction concerning the timing of preliminary objections does not raise substantial or serious points of law warranting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Cross-Examination — Right to Re-Examination
Where a party has commenced cross-examination of a witness, fairness requires that the witness be afforded the opportunity to be re-examined before the court entertains applications that might dispose of the matter. A party should not be denied re-examination at a belated stage when the opposing party had earlier opportunities to raise preliminary objections but elected instead to cross-examine.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.9
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.28
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44

Cases cited (1)

  • Mukiso Biscuits

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Dr. James Akampumuza v Makerere University Business School and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 310 of 2013) [2015] UGHCCD 445 (27 August 2015)
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.