Faustine Ntambara v Benon Sebujisho (Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2021)

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

By majority, the Supreme Court held that a High Court decision in a civil revision application under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act is final and not appealable, because appellate jurisdiction is purely a creature of statute and no statute confers a right of appeal from a civil revision order. The High Court, when revising a magistrate's court decision, does not exercise original jurisdiction, so section 6(1) of the Judicature Act gives the Supreme Court no second-appeal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal had wrongly entertained the appeal in Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2012; that decision was nullified and the present appeal struck out as incompetent for want of jurisdiction. Mugenyi, JSC dissented, treating civil revision as part of the High Court's unlimited original jurisdiction.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as incompetent for want of jurisdiction (by majority); the Court of Appeal's decision in Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2012 nullified.

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent and others for trespass to land at Plot 7 Block 647 Kapeka, Kiboga, in Civil Suit No. 47 of 2003 in the Chief Magistrate's Court, and obtained judgment in his favour. Rather than appeal, the respondent applied to the High Court for revision of that decision (Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2007), which was dismissed on the basis that the proper course was an appeal. The respondent obtained leave to appeal the dismissal, and the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2012) allowed the appeal, declared a mistrial of Civil Suit No. 47 of 2003 and ordered a retrial before another magistrate, finding the trial magistrate had decided the suit without hearing evidence and relied on an irrelevant survey report. The appellant, aggrieved, appealed to the Supreme Court without obtaining leave, contending the appeal before the Court of Appeal was incompetent under section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act and filed out of time.

Issues

1. Whether a decision of the High Court in a civil revision application under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act is appealable to the Court of Appeal.
2. Whether the High Court, when exercising its civil revisionary powers under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act, acts in the exercise of its original jurisdiction so as to confer second appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court under section 6(1) of the Judicature Act.
3. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal arising from the Court of Appeal's decision.
4. Whether the appeal that was before the Court of Appeal was competently instituted within the prescribed time and rules of procedure.

Orders

• Revision decisions of the High Court made under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282 are final and are not appealable to the Court of Appeal.
• The decision in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2012, which arose from an incompetent appeal against a revision decision, is nullified.
• The appeal in the Supreme Court arising from the Court of Appeal's decision is incompetent and is struck out.
• No order is made as to costs of this appeal and the appeal in the Court of Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (27)

• Judicature Act, Cap. 16 s.6(1)
• Judicature Act, Cap. 16 s.6(2)
• Judicature Act, Cap. 16 s.16
• Judicature Act, Cap. 16 s.17
• Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282 s.65
• Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282 s.76
• Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282 s.77
• Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282 s.79(2)
• Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282 s.83
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 r.2
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.45
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.45(7)
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.50
• Criminal Procedure Code Act s.51
• Magistrates Courts Act s.221
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 132(2)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 134(2)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 139
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.39
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.83
• Court of Appeal Rules r.5
• Court of Appeal Rules r.30
• Court of Appeal Rules r.33
• Court of Appeal Rules r.76
• Court of Appeal Rules r.83

Cases cited (16)

• Attorney-General v Shah (No 4) [1971] 1 EA 50
• Baku Raphael Obudra v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
• Attorney General v Hajj Swaibu Nuwagine Kikwanzi (Civil Applications Nos 013 of 2019 and 015 of 2020) [2024] UGSC 14
• Joy Tumushabe & Another v Anglo-African Ltd & Another [1999] UGSC 5
• Makula International Ltd & Another v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another [1982] UGSC 2
• Ham Enterprises Ltd & Others v DTB Ltd & Another [2023] UGSC 15
• Drake Lubega v Attorney General & Others (Consolidated Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 31 & 32 of 2011)
• Paul Semwogerere & 2 Others v Attorney General [2004] UGSC 49
• Warehousing & Forwarding Co. of East Africa Ltd v Jafferali & Sons Ltd [1963] EA 385
• Tanganyika Farmers Association Ltd v Unyamwezi Development Corporation Ltd [1960] EA 620
• Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank [1993] UGSC 16
• Bhag Bhari v Mehdi Khan [1956] EA 94
• Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
• Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda & Another v Omar Awadh & 6 Others [2012-2015] EACJ LR 214
• Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta & Another [2001] UGSC 3
• The Iron & Steelwares Ltd v C. W. Martyr & Company [1956] EACA 175

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Nakalyango Fatuma v Electoral Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No. 57 of 2026)

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