Wakilii

Kabagambe (suing through her attorneys kabagambe rose and katusabe diana) v Mbabazi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 80 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 294 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against a ruling dismissing an application for review of a judgment in a civil suit
Decision
Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal granted

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 granted leave to appeal against a ruling that dismissed an application for review. The applicant sought to challenge a judgment in a civil suit to which she was not a party, claiming ownership of land that was the subject of compensation. The court held that prima facie there were grounds of appeal meriting serious judicial consideration and that the applicant's right of appeal should be protected to attain the ends of justice, notwithstanding the trial judge's view that the claims could be better addressed through a fresh suit.

Outcome

Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal granted

Facts

The applicant, Kabagambe Grace, filed an application for review (Miscellaneous Application No. 03 of 2022) seeking to set aside the judgment in Civil Suit No. 012 of 2016, to which she was not a party. The judgment had ordered compensation to be paid by Kyenjojo Town Council to Mbabazi Resty (administratrix of the estate of Tinkasimire Yowana) for suit land. The applicant claimed she was the legal owner of the suit land, having purchased it from the late Tinkamanyire Yowana, and produced purchase agreements and a photocopy of a certificate of title. She stated she had been unable to present this evidence during the original trial as she lived in the USA and was unaware of the suit. The first respondent contended that the suit land was outside the land sold to the applicant and remained part of the deceased's estate. The court dismissed the review application on 16 August 2022, holding that while the evidence was new, it had no bearing on the subject matter of Civil Suit No. 012 of 2016 as it had not been proved that the suit land was part of the land sold to the applicant. The applicant then sought leave to appeal that ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has presented grounds to warrant grant of leave to appeal.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal allowed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Principles for Grant
Leave to appeal will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, or where the grant of leave is necessary to protect the applicant's right of appeal and for attaining the ends of justice.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Real Prospect of Success
A real prospect of success means that the prospect for success must be realistic rather than fanciful. The court considering an application for leave to appeal is not required to analyse whether the grounds of the proposed appeal will succeed, but merely whether there is a real prospect of success.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Trial Judge's View of Correctness
Leave to appeal should not be refused simply because the trial judge is of opinion that the decision was correct. If the question is one of principle and a novel one, ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted, and substantial justice should not be lost sight of in considering finality of decision.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Sango Bay Estate v Dresdner Bank & Attorney General [1971] EA 17
  • Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
  • Akisoferi Ogola v Aliko Emmanuel Otheino & Another (1998) VI KALR I
  • Kilama Tonny & Anor Vs. Mr. Grace Perpetua Otim

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabagambe (suing through her attorneys kabagambe rose and katusabe diana) v Mbabazi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 80 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 294 (31 October 2022)
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.