Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd v Maviiri (Civil Reference No. 174 of 2015)

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

The Court of Appeal held that a single Justice of the court has jurisdiction under section 12 of the Judicature Act only over interlocutory matters, that is, matters arising within an already subsisting cause before the court. Because the applicant's notice of appeal had earlier been struck out, no appeal was subsisting, so an application to reinstate or validate an appeal and extend time was not interlocutory but a matter that would commence proceedings. Additionally, rule 53(2)(a) barred a single Justice from hearing applications for leave to appeal, which such an application effectively was. The single Justice therefore lacked jurisdiction; her ruling was a nullity and was set aside, with the main application to be heard by the full panel.

Outcome

Reference allowed; ruling of single Justice set aside; main application to be heard by full panel

Facts

The applicant, Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd, was the unsuccessful party in High Court Civil Suit No. 334 of 2011. It filed a notice of appeal and subsequently a memorandum and record of appeal on 6 October 2014. The respondent, Andrew Maviiri, filed Miscellaneous Application No. 274 of 2014 to strike out the notice of appeal on the ground that an essential step had not been taken. On 7 July 2015 the Court of Appeal struck out the applicant's notice of appeal. The applicant then filed Application No. 200 of 2015 seeking extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the High Court decision, extension of time to file and serve a memorandum and record of appeal, or in the alternative validation of the earlier appeal. A single Justice of the Court of Appeal allowed that application, prompting the respondent's reference to a full panel challenging the single Justice's jurisdiction.

Issues

1. Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear an application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal and to validate an appeal where no notice of appeal was subsisting.
2. Whether such an application constituted an interlocutory matter within the meaning of section 12 of the Judicature Act.

Orders

• Reference allowed.
• The ruling of the single Justice of this court is set aside.
• The main application shall be heard by the present panel on a date to be notified to the parties.
• Costs to abide the outcome of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Judicature Act s.12
• Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 53
• Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 82

Cases cited (3)

• [2014] UGSC 14
• Uganda National Examinations Board v Mparo General Contractors Ltd (Civil Application No. 19 of 2004)
• Kyamanungu John v Jane Nyaisanga (Civil Application No. 116 of 2015)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

• Airtel Uganda Limited v Garfield Spence a.k.a. Konshens & Mtech Limited (Civil Application 458 of 2024)
• Gasasira v Bataringaya (Civil Application 68 of 2025)
• Wuma v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Application 1193 of 2023)
• Roughton International Ltd and Others v Uganda Investment Authority and Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Civil Application No. 15 of 2023)

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