Wakilii

Kizza Bigogo v Mugisa (Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 108 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against a ruling granting consequential orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2020, which itself arose from the striking out of Civil Suit No. 56 of 2018 as res judicata
Decision
Application dismissed; applicant may file necessary papers in the Court of Appeal if she wishes to pursue an appeal

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 dismissed the application for leave to appeal, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate arguable grounds of law meriting serious judicial consideration or that she would suffer substantial loss. The court found the application was not made bona fide but appeared intended to delay the respondent's realization of her litigation fruits. The orders granted in the consequential orders application were within the prayers sought and the applicant was in constructive rather than actual possession of the property.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicant may file necessary papers in the Court of Appeal if she wishes to pursue an appeal

Facts

The applicant and her son filed Civil Suit No. 56 of 2018 against the respondent seeking cancellation of a certificate of title for property comprised in FRV MAS 11 Folio 24. The respondent, widow and administrator of the estate of the late Henry Mugisa (the applicant's son), was the registered proprietor. The suit property had been the subject of Administration Cause No. 596/1987 and was passed to the respondent through a certificate of passing of final accounts. The suit was struck out as res judicata in Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2019. The respondent then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2020 for consequential orders including vacant possession and eviction, which were granted on 21 December 2021. The applicant filed the present application seeking leave to appeal against that ruling, arguing the orders were not part of the prayers and that the application for leave should have been heard before the consequential orders application.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2020.
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated arguable grounds of appeal meriting serious judicial consideration.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in granting consequential orders before hearing the application for leave to appeal.
  4. Whether the orders granted were outside the prayers in the application for consequential orders.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Any pending application for stay of execution lapses.
  • Each party to bear her own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Test for Grant of Leave
Leave to appeal will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration. An applicant must demonstrate that the application bears substantial questions of law to be decided by the appellate court and that the intended appellant has a bona fide and arguable case on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Burden on Applicant
An applicant for leave to appeal is duty bound to show the court that the application bears substantial questions of law to be decided by the appellate court and has a bona fide and arguable case on appeal. The applicant must set out the grounds of objection showing where the court erred and demonstrate arguable points of law requiring serious judicial consideration arising from the court's decision.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Family Relationships
Under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court has discretion to determine by whom costs should be paid as the justice of the case requires. Where parties are related by family ties (mother-in-law and daughter-in-law), the court may exercise its discretion not to award costs to the successful party in order to encourage family unity, reconciliation and peace.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Sango Bay v Dresdner Bank [1971] EA 17
  • Ayebazibwe v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 292 of 2014)
  • Herbert Sekandi t/a Land Order Developers v Crane Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kizza Bigogo v Mugisa (Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 108 (8 July 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.