Wakilii

Gavana & Another v Tibeijuka (Miscellaneous Application 146 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 375 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time arising from Civil Suit No. 119 of 2013 in the Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objection

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 High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal out of time on the ground that it had been overtaken by events. The applicants had already filed an appeal which was dismissed for being incompetent (filed out of time without leave). The court held that once a final decision has been issued, the court becomes functus officio and cannot alter that decision except where specifically authorised by statute. No enabling law permits the court to entertain an application for leave to appeal out of time after the appeal itself has already been dismissed. Granting the application would amount to the court exercising jurisdiction it does not possess.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objection

Facts

The applicants were unsuccessful in Civil Suit No. 119 of 2013 decided by the Chief Magistrate's Court on 6 December 2019. Judgment was delivered on 27 February 2020. The applicants did not file a notice of appeal within the statutory 30-day period, citing the COVID-19 lockdown imposed in March 2020 as preventing them from doing so. In November 2020, the applicants filed this application for leave to appeal out of time. Before the application was heard, the applicants filed Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2021 without first obtaining leave. That appeal was dismissed for being incompetent. The respondent then raised a preliminary objection that the present application had been overtaken by events and was moot.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to appeal out of time.
  2. Whether the application was brought under the correct legal provisions.
  3. Whether the submissions were defective for referring to both applicants when only the second applicant swore an affidavit.
  4. Whether the application had been overtaken by events following the dismissal of the appeal filed without leave.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection that the application has been overtaken by events succeeds.
  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Court's Power to Revisit Final Decisions
Once a final decision has been issued by a court, the court becomes functus officio and is powerless to change that decision, other than to correct obvious technical or clerical errors, or unless specifically authorised to do so by statute or regulations. The importance of the finality of judicial decisions strongly militates against the existence of an inherent jurisdiction to set aside a court's own final decisions. Such a power must be vested by statute or rules specifying the limited circumstances in which it is exercisable.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Application for Leave After Appeal Dismissed
Where an appeal has been dismissed for being incompetent (filed out of time without leave), a subsequent application for leave to appeal out of time cannot be entertained unless specifically authorised by statute. Granting such an application would have the effect of altering the dismissal order, which the court has no jurisdiction to do absent an enabling law. The only circumstances under which a dismissal order may be altered by the same court are those specified in Order 43 Rules 16 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules (dismissal for non-appearance, ex parte hearing, or failure to deposit costs).
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Citing Wrong or No Law
Citing a wrong law or failing to cite any law under which an application is brought is not fatal, provided the substance of the case is clear on the pleadings and the opposite party is not prejudiced. The right law can always be cited in the resolution of the substance of the application. This is a technicality curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Multiple Applicants
Where there are two or more applicants, there is no requirement that all of them must swear affidavits. Any of the parties to an application, or a person not party to the application, may swear an affidavit provided they are aware of the facts of the case and their evidence is considered vital to the application. The affidavit acts as evidence and can be used by all applicants. Order 1 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies only to circumstances where an individual brings a suit on behalf of another person, not to joint applications.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (12)

  • Ojara Otto Julius v Okwera Benson (HCMA No. 23 of 2017)
  • Tight Security Ltd v Chartis Uganda Insurance Company Ltd and Another (HCMA No. 08 of 2014)
  • Kasolo Robins Ellis v Julius Joseph Delahaije (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 04 of 2023)
  • Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon and Others (HCMA No. 430 of 2021)
  • Gold Beverages (U) Ltd v Muhangura Kenneth and Another (Civil Suit No. 163 of 2019)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696
  • Gold Beverages (U) Ltd v Muhangura Kenneth and Another (HCMA No. 674 of 2019)
  • KCCA v Lukyamuzi Investments and 3 Others (HCMA No. 613 of 2017)
  • Ssembatya and Another v Eco Petrol Ug Ltd (HCMA No. 199 of 2015)
  • Kasolo Robins Ellis v Julius Joseph (Civil Application No. 120 of 2019)
  • Kassiano Wadri v Nuru Juma (HCCA No. 45 of 2014)
  • Desai v Warsama [1967] EA 351

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gavana & Another v Tibeijuka (Miscellaneous Application 146 of 2020) [2023] UGHC 375 (12 June 2023)
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.