Wakilii

Jeremy John Graham v Dr. Kagoro Kaijamurubi (Miscellaneous Application 62 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 115 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal arising from a ruling in Civil Suit No. 48 of 2021 that referred the parties to arbitration
Decision
Applicant granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal

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

Held that leave to appeal should be granted where the applicant raises arguable grounds challenging the trial court's jurisdiction to issue directions on how arbitration should be conducted and by whom, as such grounds merit serious judicial consideration on appeal. The court must protect the applicant's right of appeal and cannot deny leave solely on the basis that the grounds lack merit.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 48 of 2021 against the applicant for breach of a lease agreement and sought recovery of possession and rent arrears. The applicant raised a preliminary point of law that the dispute was subject to an arbitral clause and the court lacked jurisdiction. The trial judge upheld the objection and referred the parties to arbitration by ICAMEK to be completed within 90 days, with costs to abide the outcome. The applicant sought leave to appeal, contending the trial judge exceeded jurisdiction by issuing directions on how arbitration was to be conducted and erred in not awarding costs after dismissing the suit. The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant was estopped from challenging his own prayer and the application was brought in bad faith.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses substantial grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Test for Granting Leave
Leave to appeal will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, and it is necessary to protect the applicant's right of appeal and for attaining the ends of justice.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Demonstrating Arguable Grounds
An applicant seeking leave to appeal must demonstrate that there are arguable points of law or grounds of appeal which require serious judicial consideration on appeal arising from the decision of the court, and the intended appeal must have realistic prospects of success, not merely fanciful ones.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Court Not to Examine Merits
In considering an application for leave to appeal, the court is not called upon to examine the merits of the intended grounds of appeal, which is a preserve of the appellate court, and the court should not deny leave solely on the basis that the intended grounds lack merit or are unappealing.
Arbitration & ADR — Court Jurisdiction — Limits on Judicial Intervention
Where a challenge is raised that a trial court exceeded the jurisdiction permitted by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by issuing directions on the manner and timeline of arbitration after referring parties to arbitration, such challenge raises an arguable point of law meriting serious judicial consideration on appeal.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (8)

  • Sango Bay Estate v Dresdner Bank & Attorney General [1971] EA 17
  • Ayebazibwe v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 292 of 2014)
  • Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
  • Sobetra v Leeds Insurance Co (Miscellaneous Application No. 377 of 2013)
  • Herbert Sekandi t/a Land Order Developers v Crane Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2007)
  • Kengazi Angella v Mei (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 471 of 2015)
  • Kilama Tony v Grace Otim (Civil Appeal No. 031 of 2019)
  • Obbo v Onyango & Others (Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jeremy John Graham v Dr. Kagoro Kaijamurubi (Miscellaneous Application 62 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 115 (27 March 2024)
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.