Wakilii

Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector Gen. Of Government (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2002)

Court of Appeal · [2003] UGCA 4 · 2003 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the High Court's dismissal of an ex parte application for leave to apply for prerogative orders of certiorari and prohibition
Decision
Appeal allowed; orders set aside and matter remitted to the High Court for hearing before another Judge

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 3 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations fading — 9 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Court of Appeal held that at the leave stage of an application for prerogative orders of certiorari and prohibition under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Rules of Court) Rules, the trial Judge must look only at the statement of facts, supporting affidavit and annextures to determine whether a prima facie case exists; the merits or demerits are not to be considered until the matter is heard inter partes. The trial Judge erred by considering the merits and relying on the respondent's report which had not been filed with the application. An ex parte application may only be rejected for lack of good faith, missing material documents, or defects apparent on the record. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for hearing before another Judge.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; orders set aside and matter remitted to the High Court for hearing before another Judge

Facts

The appellant company owned a farm in Singo, Mubende District, which the Government expropriated in 1973. In 1989 the farm was returned to the widow of the company's promoter, in a dilapidated state. She submitted a compensation claim under the Expropriated Properties Act. In 1994 Government made an ex gratia payment of shs 100,000,000, which she apparently did not accept as full settlement. The Solicitor General advised that the claim was enforceable and the appellant should be paid, with the ex gratia payment deducted. Government later indicated readiness to pay shs 1,015,437,537 in full settlement. A cheque of shs 500,000,000 was allegedly issued as part payment, but the Inspector General of Government stopped payment after his own inquiries, issuing a report countermanding the Attorney General's advice. The appellant applied to the High Court for leave to seek orders of certiorari and prohibition against the respondent's action. The High Court dismissed the application, leading to this appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge erred in considering the merits of the substantive application at the stage of an ex parte application for leave to apply for prerogative orders.
  2. Whether the trial Judge was entitled to rely on a report not filed with the application for leave.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Orders of the trial court set aside.
  • File remitted to the High Court for hearing before another Judge.
  • Costs of the appeal and of the proceedings in the lower court to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Application for Leave — Scope of Court's Inquiry at Leave Stage
On an ex parte application for leave to apply for prerogative orders under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Rules of Court) Rules, the court examines only the statement of facts, the supporting affidavit and any annextures to determine whether a prima facie case exists, and must not consider the merits or demerits of the substantive application, which can only be determined after an inter partes hearing.
Judicial Review — Application for Leave — Grounds for Rejection of Ex Parte Application
An ex parte application for leave may only be rejected where the court is not satisfied it was brought in good faith, where a document material to the just determination of the substantive application is missing, or where there is a defect apparent on the face of the record.
Administrative Law — Prerogative Orders — Reliance on Material Not Filed With Application
It is wrong and premature for a trial Judge to rely on a party's report or document that has not been filed with the application for leave, and to determine the matter in controversy without affording all sides an opportunity to be heard.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Rules of Court) Rules (S.I. No. 74-1) Rule 2
  • Expropriated Properties Act (Act 9/82)
  • Companies Act

Cases citing this judgment (10)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector Gen. Of Government (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2002) [2003] UGCA 4 (30 May 2003)
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.