Wakilii

Kabushenga v Kirima Limited & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1475 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 280 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling dismissing preliminary objections in Civil Suit 18 of 2022
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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 dismissed an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling. The court held that leave to appeal requires a substantial question of law or substantial miscarriage of justice. The applicant's claim that he was denied a fair hearing was false—the court had deferred rulings on preliminary objections to allow both parties to adduce evidence at full trial. There is no right of appeal from routine procedural and evidentiary rulings that do not finally determine the suit. No question of law of sufficient difficulty or importance was raised to warrant consideration by the Court of Appeal.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Facts

The Applicant, Dr. Hamlet Kabushenga, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling delivered on 31 October 2022 dismissing Misc. Application 244/2022. In that ruling, the court had disposed of preliminary objections 1 and 6, and deferred rulings on preliminary objections 2 to 5 to the final judgment after evidence had been adduced at full trial. The Applicant argued that deferring the rulings denied him the right to a fair hearing and constituted a substantial point of law for the Court of Appeal. The Respondents opposed the application.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper matter for leave to appeal to be granted to the Applicant to appeal the ruling and orders dismissing Misc. Application 244/2022 delivered on 31/10/2022.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Substantial Question of Law — Substantial Miscarriage of Justice
Leave to appeal shall not be granted except where the intending appellant satisfies the court that the decision against which an appeal is intended involves a substantial question of law or is a decision appearing to have caused a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Appeals — No Right of Appeal from Routine Procedural Rulings
Save for the interlocutory decisions specified under the Civil Procedure Rules, there is no right of appeal from interlocutory orders which are incidental to the suit but not resulting from the final determination of the suit itself, including routine procedural and evidentiary rulings not determinant of the rights of the parties made in the ordinary course of trial.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — No Appeal from Ruling Overruling Preliminary Objection
There is no right of appeal from an order overruling a preliminary objection or an objection raised during the course of trial based on a point of law, as the regime for interlocutory appeals was not designed to cater for appeals against routine procedural and evidentiary rulings.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Prima Facie Grounds Meriting Serious Judicial Consideration
Leave to appeal from an order in civil proceedings will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration.

Cases cited (4)

  • Alley Route Ltd v Uganda Development Bank Ltd (HCMA 634 of 2004)
  • Sango Bay Estates Limited v Dresdner Bank [1971] EA 17
  • Leaf Tobacco and Commodities (U) Ltd v Mastermind Tobacco (K) Ltd (MA 044 of 2012)
  • Kilama Tonny and Another v Mrc Grace P. Otim (C.A. 031 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabushenga v Kirima Limited & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1475 of 2022) [2023] UGCommC 280 (13 March 2023)
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.