Kiyaga v Segujja & Anor (Civil Application No. 254 of 2015)

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 an application under rule 101 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, the Court held that it may, for sufficient reasons, order two or more appeals to be consolidated. Finding compelling reasons — both appeals being pending before the same Court, arising from related facts and parties, with one appeal directly affecting the other — and noting the consent of the parties, the Court ordered that Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2010 be consolidated and heard at the same time, with each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

Application granted; the two appeals ordered consolidated and to be heard at the same time

Facts

The applicant Francis Kiyaga deposited a certificate of title to land at Kireka (Kyadondo Block 232 plot 608) with the second respondent as security for a loan. After repaying, he alleged the second respondent fraudulently transferred the land into her name. He sued in High Court Civil Suit No. 198 of 1999, which was decided against him, and he appealed (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2010). While that suit was pending, the second respondent allegedly sold the land to the first respondent, who then sued Kiyaga for trespass and eviction (Civil Suit No. 217 of 2001), succeeding and resulting in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2010. The applicant sought consolidation of the two appeals, contending they arose from the same or similar facts and that determination of the fraud appeal would directly affect the trespass appeal. The parties consented to consolidation.

Issues

1. Whether the two pending civil appeals should be consolidated and heard together.

Orders

• Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2010 are consolidated.
• The consolidated appeals shall be heard at the same time.
• Each party shall bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-2010 r.101
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-2010 r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-2010 r.44

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.

• Makerere University Business School and 2 Others v Dr. Akampumuza (Civil Application No. 265 of 2015)

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