Wakilii

Homs Company Limited v Ssempereza Rajab and Others (Miscellaneous Application 2697 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 145 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling dismissing preliminary objections in underlying land suit
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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 an interlocutory ruling. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal had a real prospect of success. The court held that merely asserting error in the lower ruling without showing likelihood of reversal on appeal is insufficient to obtain leave. The application was filed within the prescribed 14-day period but lacked merit on substantive grounds.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Facts

The respondents instituted High Court Civil Suit No. 857 of 2022 against the applicant and four others seeking declaratory orders, permanent injunction, eviction and cancellation of titles. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 322 of 2024 seeking dismissal of the suit on grounds of res judicata, limitation period, and other preliminary objections. That application was heard and dismissed on 25 September 2024 with costs to the respondents. The applicant, dissatisfied with the ruling, filed the instant application on 8 October 2024 seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, as there was no automatic right of appeal from the interlocutory order. The applicant contended the trial judge erred in holding the suit was not time-barred, not res judicata, disclosed a cause of action, and was not against a non-existent party.

Issues

  1. Whether the circumstances of the instant application warrant the grant of an order of leave to appeal against the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 322 of 2024.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to abide in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Interlocutory Orders — Test for Grant of Leave
An applicant seeking leave to appeal from an interlocutory order must demonstrate either that the intended appeal has reasonable chances of success or that the applicant has arguable grounds of appeal and has not been guilty of dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Prospect of Success — Burden on Applicant
The court considering an application for leave to appeal is not required to analyze whether the grounds of the proposed appeal will succeed, but merely whether there is a real prospect of success. The applicant must not only assert that the lower court erred but also demonstrate that if the findings are revisited by the appellate court, there is a likelihood that they will be reversed.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Leave to Appeal
A formal application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be made within 14 days after the order sought to be appealed, as provided under Rule 40(1)(b) of the Judicature Court of Appeal Rules.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Southern Union Insurance Brokers Limited and 3 Others v Niko Insurance (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 568 of 2022)
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd and Others v Dresdner Bank [1992] EA 17
  • Olweny and Others v Oyoo and Others (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2018)
  • Mugisha and 3 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 481 of 2008)
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
  • Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Homs_Company_Limited_v_Ssempereza_Rajab_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_2697_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_145_(30_July_2025)
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.