Wakilii

Judith Lugoye v Brenda Nassaza (Miscellaneous Application No. 2619 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 249 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal a High Court revision decision
Decision
Application dismissed on both procedural and substantive grounds

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 revision decisions of the High Court made under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act are final and not appealable to the Court of Appeal, following the Supreme Court decision in Faustine Ntambara v Benon Subujisho. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed both on procedural grounds for non-appearance under Order 9 Rule 22 and on substantive grounds that the proposed appeal was not legally viable.

Outcome

Application dismissed on both procedural and substantive grounds

Facts

The applicant sought leave to appeal a ruling in High Court Land Revision Application No. 18 of 2023 delivered on 20 September 2024. The revision application had arisen from Mengo Magistrates' Court Civil Suit No. 7 of 2019. The applicant contended that the judge erred in law on multiple grounds relating to cause of action, agency, representative suits, and the application of Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that revision decisions are final and not appealable. When the application was fixed for hearing on 28 August 2025, only counsel for the respondent appeared; neither the applicant nor her lawyer attended court.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal against a High Court revision decision.
  2. Whether the application should be dismissed for non-appearance of the applicant at the hearing.

Orders

  • Application dismissed on procedural grounds that the applicant did not appear in court on the date fixed for hearing as per Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1.
  • Application dismissed on substantive ground that the appeal for which the applicant is seeking leave is not legally viable.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Revision — Finality of Revision Decisions — Right of Appeal
Revision decisions of the High Court made under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act are final and not appealable to the Court of Appeal where no statute prescribes such an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Non-Appearance — Dismissal of Application
Where an applicant does not appear when an application is called for hearing and the respondent appears, the court has jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the application.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Futility of Granting Leave
It would be in vain for a court to grant leave to appeal when it is evident that the proposed appeal is not legally viable.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (2)

  • Faustine Ntambara v Benon Subujisho (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2021)
  • Faustine Ntambara v Benon Subujisho (SCCA No. 8 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Judith_Lugoye_v_Brenda_Nassaza_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2619_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_249_(5_September_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.