Wakilii

Kabagambe and 5 Others v Kaahwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 100 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 178 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend memorandum of appeal to include ground challenging pecuniary jurisdiction of trial court, arising from Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2018 (originating from Civil Suit No. 004 of 2016)
Decision
Application for leave to amend memorandum of appeal dismissed with costs to respondent

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the application for leave to amend the memorandum of appeal. The court held that the proposed ground challenging pecuniary jurisdiction was a matter of mixed law and fact requiring evidence that was not before the trial court and could not be introduced on appeal. The valuation report relied upon was created after trial and lacked evidential value. The applicants' filing of multiple overlapping applications constituted abuse of court process, and there was inordinate delay in bringing the amendment application three years after filing the appeal.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend memorandum of appeal dismissed with costs to respondent

Facts

The applicants sought leave to amend their memorandum of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2018 to add a ground challenging the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate's Court that heard Civil Suit No. 004 of 2016. The suit concerned trespass to land. The applicants obtained a valuation report dated September 2020, after trial, valuing the land at UGX 17.5 billion, which they argued exceeded the Chief Magistrate's pecuniary jurisdiction of UGX 50 million. The respondent had used this valuation in a bill of costs. The applicants had previously filed Civil Revision No. 12 of 2020 on the jurisdiction issue, which they withdrew, and Miscellaneous Application No. 84 of 2018 to adduce additional evidence, which was dismissed with costs. They subsequently filed Civil Revision No. 6 of 2021, also seeking revision on jurisdiction grounds. The appeal itself was filed in June 2018 but the amendment application was not filed until over three years later.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to the applicants to amend the memorandum of appeal to include a ground challenging the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court.
  2. Whether the unsealed annextures to the supporting affidavit vitiate the application.
  3. Whether a new ground of appeal based on mixed law and fact can be introduced at the appellate stage when it was never raised in the trial court.
  4. Whether the application was brought with inordinate and unexplained delay.
  5. Whether the application constitutes an abuse of court process.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Amendment of Memorandum of Appeal — Introduction of New Ground
An appellate court may allow a new ground of appeal only where it is satisfied that full justice can be done between the parties and that it has before it all the facts bearing upon the new contention as completely as would have been the case if the controversy had arisen at trial.
Civil Procedure — Appeal — New Ground of Mixed Law and Fact — Evidence Required
Only a pure question of law may be raised on appeal even when it was never raised in the court below. A question of both mixed law and fact, where evidence would be needed, cannot be entertained at the appellate stage unless it was raised in the trial court.
Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Documents Not in Existence at Trial
Appellate courts will not admit additional evidence which introduces a matter that is new altogether which was never raised or does not emerge at all from the evidence on record. Evidence created after trial cannot form the basis for amending a memorandum of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Unsealed Annextures — Effect on Validity
Although Rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act requires exhibits to be securely sealed, annextures to affidavits that are not exhibits produced during trial do not offend this rule. Failure to seal annextures does not affect the competence of an affidavit where the deponent has sworn to facts of which he has personal knowledge.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Multiplicity of Applications
The filing of multiple overlapping applications seeking the same or similar relief constitutes an abuse of court process and contributes to case backlogs. Where an applicant files successive applications on the same issue while an appeal remains pending, this may constitute grounds for dismissing the application.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Abuse of Process
Costs follow the event unless court for good cause orders otherwise. No good cause exists to depart from this principle where an applicant has engaged in abuse of court process through filing multiple overlapping applications and has made no efforts to compromise the matter.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (15)

  • Kikongo Noelina v Electoral Commission & Anor (High Court Election Appeal No. 75 of 2011)
  • Musisi Gabriel & Anor v Edco Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 386 of 2013)
  • Christine Bitarabeho v Edward Kakonge (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2000)
  • William Twakirane v Viola Bamusedde (Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2007)
  • Namboowa Rashida v Bavekuno Mafumu & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 69 of 2016)
  • Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd & Anor v Reamaton Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1998)
  • Kakooza John Baptist v Electoral Commission & Anor (Supreme Court Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2011)
  • Tanganyika Farmers Association Ltd v Unyamwezi Development Corporation Ltd [1960] E.A. 620
  • North Staffordshire Railway Co v Edge [1920] AC 254
  • Connecticut Fire Insurance Co v Kavenagh [1892] AC 473
  • Tasmania [1890] 15 AC 223
  • Aluma & 2 Ors v Okuti (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2016)
  • R v Yakobo Busigo (1945) 12 EACA 60
  • Karmali Tarmohamed & Anor v T.H. Lakhani & Co Ltd [1958] E.A. 567
  • Namisango v Galiwango & Anor [1986] HCB 37

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabagambe and 5 Others v Kaahwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 100 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 178 (13 December 2021)
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.