Kaluuya Wilson v Twasa Paul (Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2010)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On a preliminary objection that the grounds of the second appeal offended sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the Court held that a second appeal lies only on points of law. The grounds were founded on matters of fact, did not specify the points alleged to have been wrongly decided or the nature of the order sought, and did not bring out the gist of the evidence said to be un-evaluated or its effect on the decision. The grounds failed the statutory threshold and were struck out, with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Second appeal struck out for incompetent grounds; appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Facts

The appellant claimed to have bought the suit land at Nalyamagonja village, Betta Parish, Kalangala District, from Katongole Francis in 1995 for UGX 100,000, under an executed agreement. On the land stood a wooden house, fruit trees, bananas and coffee. He occupied it until 2003, when he left for Busoga to care for a sick brother who died in 2007. On returning, he found the respondent cultivating the land, with the trees, bananas and house destroyed. The respondent claimed the land was titled as Block 13 Plot 5 Ssese County and belonged to his late grandfather Sseezi Sajjabi, and denied knowledge of the transaction. The Chief Magistrate's Court at Kalangala decided for the appellant. On first appeal the High Court reversed, finding the agreement suspect (unsigned by the buyer and the witnesses) and holding that the appellant was a tenant by occupancy who had voluntarily abandoned his occupancy, so his right lapsed under section 37 of the Land Act. The appellant brought this second appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the grounds of the second appeal disclose pure points of law as required by sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
2. Whether a ground alleging the first appellate court's failure to re-evaluate the evidence, and a ground challenging its finding on desertion of the kibanja, raise questions of law competent for a second appeal.

Orders

• The appeal is struck out.
• The appellant shall pay the costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Act s.72
• Civil Procedure Act s.74
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.85(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.86(1)
• Land Act s.37

Cases cited (6)

• Godfrey Sentongo v David Balya Katumba [20251 UGCA 28G
• Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd [1997] UGSC 28
• National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Air Services [2004] UGCA 42
• Katooro Jamada & Others v Kaganda George William [2025] UGCA 271
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda [1998] UGSC 20
• Kisembo & Others v Tibezinda & Others [2022] UGCA 294

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.

• Kuluuya Wilson v Lwasa Paul (Civil Application 50 of 2020)

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