Livingstone Kayaga Kizito v Waligo Charles (Miscellaneous Application No. 80 of 2012.)

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 of Appeal dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a High Court ruling overruling the applicant's preliminary objections. Applying the principles in Sango Bay Estates and Degeya Trading Stores, the Court held that an applicant seeking leave must show that the intended appeal has reasonable chances of success or raises arguable grounds. On perusing the grounds, the Court found no merited ground worth the grant of leave and agreed with the trial judge that no serious questions of law or fact arose. The application was dismissed with costs and the matter ordered to recommence in the High Court, preferably before another judge.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; matter remitted to the High Court to recommence before another judge.

Facts

In H.C.C.S. No. 399 of 2010, the respondent sued the applicant. At the scheduling conference, the applicant raised preliminary points of law contending that there was no cause of action, the suit was time-barred under section 176 of the Registration of Titles Act, the suit was res judicata, and the agreements relied upon were illegal. The learned trial judge, Justice Joseph Murangira, dismissed the preliminary objections with costs by ruling dated 6 January 2012. The applicant, having no automatic right of appeal, applied to the High Court for leave to appeal, which was refused on 12 April 2012. The applicant then filed a fresh application before the Court of Appeal seeking leave to appeal against the trial judge's ruling on the preliminary objections.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of leave to appeal against the learned trial judge's ruling dismissing his preliminary objections.

Orders

• Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
• Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.
• The case to be recommenced from where it stopped in the High Court before the preliminary objections were raised, preferably before another Judge.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13/10 Rule 40(1)(a)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13/10 Rule 40(1)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13/10 Rule 40(2)(b)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 rules 1(2), (3) and (4)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 rules 2 and 4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 28
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.176
• Stamps Act
• Contract Act

Cases cited (4)

• Charles Ssempebwa & 134 others V. Silver Springs Hotel Limited 2007 HCB vol. 1 page 65
• Shah V. Attorney General (1971) EA 50
• Sango Bay Estates Ltd & Ors Vs Dresdner Bank A.G (1972) EA 17
• Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Hamza Mbago and Others v Jinja Municipal Council and Commissioner Land Registration (Civil Suit No. 55 of 2018; Miscellaneous Application No. 221 of 2019)
• Hamza Mbago and Others v Jinja Municipal Council and Commissioner Land Registration (Civil Suit No. 55 of 2018; Miscellaneous Application No. 221 of 2

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