Kasedde Mukasa George& Ors v Holiday Hotel Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 93 of 2019)

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

The court held that there is no statutory provision conferring a right of appeal to the Supreme Court from an original interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal made in a pending appeal. Appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute and cannot be conferred by the court's inherent powers under rule 2(2). Section 6(1) of the Judicature Act permits an appeal as of right only where the Court of Appeal confirms, varies or reverses a decision of the High Court, which had not occurred here. Granting leave does not confer jurisdiction. An application for leave to appeal such an order is therefore futile, and the application was incompetent and struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicants, administrators of an estate, had filed an application in the Court of Appeal (Civil Application No. 226 of 2018) seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the pending Civil Appeal No. 155 of 2017. That application was heard and dismissed on 21 March 2019. The applicants then sought leave to appeal that dismissal to the Supreme Court, together with a stay of proceedings in the pending appeal, contending that the additional evidence was relevant to showing the second respondent was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of fraud. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that no appeal lies to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal incidental to a pending appeal, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave where no right of appeal existed.

Issues

1. Whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal made in a pending appeal.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal can grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against such an interlocutory order.
3. Whether proceedings in the pending Court of Appeal appeal should be stayed pending the intended appeal.

Orders

• The application is incompetent and is struck out with costs to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.4
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.6(1)
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.6(2)
• Constitution of Uganda article 132(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions rule 30(1)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions rule 42
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions rule 43(1) and (2)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 39
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46

Cases cited (2)

• Beatrice Kobusingye v Fiona and George Nyakaana (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004)
• Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50

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.

• Asaba v Afro-Kai Ltd and Another (HCT-01-LD-CA-0032-2024)

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