Wakilii

Kagoro v Jotena and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1985 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 302 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal from High Court ruling dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 942 of 2022
Decision
Leave to appeal granted to the applicant; stay of execution denied

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 to the applicant who was aggrieved by the dismissal of Miscellaneous Application No. 942 of 2022. The court found that the applicant satisfied the requirements for leave to appeal by demonstrating arguable grounds that merit appellate consideration. The court declined to grant a stay of execution, holding that it had already pronounced on that issue in its earlier ruling of 24 October 2022 and no new grounds had been cited.

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted to the applicant; stay of execution denied

Facts

The applicant brought an application under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules 2, 3 and 4 of Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking leave to appeal the court's ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 942 of 2022 arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 59 of 2010. The applicant was aggrieved by the ruling dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 942 of 2022. The applicant argued that the decision was appealable as of right and sought leave to appeal. The applicant also sought a stay of execution. The first respondent did not participate in the matter. The second respondent opposed the application, arguing that there were no substantial questions of law to be decided and that the applicant had not disclosed questions of general principle. The second respondent also opposed the stay of execution, noting that a similar application had been determined by the court.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for the grant of leave to appeal from the ruling dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 942 of 2022.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted a stay of execution under Miscellaneous Application No. 942 of 2022.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal granted.
  • Prayer for stay of execution not granted.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Requirements for Grant
An applicant for leave to appeal must clearly show the grounds upon which he or she intends to appeal and must further illustrate the likelihood of success of such an application on appeal by laying out those grounds. It is not enough for an applicant to aver that one is aggrieved with a decision of the court.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Substantial Questions of Law
What amounts to a question of law is that the issue raised or involved is one of general principle which is to be decided for the first time or where the question involved is one on which further argument and a decision of the superior court would be to the public advantage.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Arguable Grounds
An applicant seeking leave to appeal must show either that the intended appeal has reasonable chance of success or has arguable grounds of appeal and has not been guilty of dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Repeat Applications
Where a court has pronounced itself on an issue of stay of execution and no new grounds have been cited, the court will stand by its earlier decision and will not grant a stay of execution in a subsequent application raising the same issue.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Sango Estates Ltd and Others v Dresdner Bank
  • Herbert Sekandi t/a Land Order Developers v Crane Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 44 of 2007)
  • Alley Route Ltd v Uganda Development Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 634 of 2006)
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v URA (CACA No. 16 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kagoro v Jotena and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1985 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 302 (12 December 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.