Wakilii

Luwanga David Mulengani and Another v Tabuley Julius (Miscellaneous Application No. 3344 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 353 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enlargement of time and leave to appeal against a ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 1786 of 2022
Decision
Application for enlargement of time and leave to appeal dismissed; underlying civil appeal fixed for hearing

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 court held that it was not necessary for the applicants to seek leave to appeal out of time, as there is no specific time limit for lodging an application for leave to appeal where there is no automatic right of appeal. However, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed grounds of appeal did not raise serious points of law warranting consideration by the Court of Appeal, as they primarily concerned evaluation of evidence and one ground had already been rectified as a clerical error.

Outcome

Application for enlargement of time and leave to appeal dismissed; underlying civil appeal fixed for hearing

Facts

The applicants sought enlargement of time and leave to appeal against a ruling delivered on 3 November 2023 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1786 of 2022, which arose from Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2020, itself arising from Civil Suit No. 63 of 2015 in the Chief Magistrate's Court, Nakawa. The dispute concerned land. The applicants claimed they were prevented by sufficient cause from filing within time and that the ruling contained errors going to the root of the appeal. The respondent opposed, arguing the applicants were aware of proceedings, that one alleged error (inclusion of the name Nambatya Mastulah) was a clerical mistake that could be corrected by review, and that there was no fixed time limit for seeking leave to appeal, making the application a non-starter.

Issues

  1. Whether it is necessary for the Applicants to apply for leave to appeal against the ruling in M/A 1786 of 2022 out of time.
  2. Whether the Applicants should be granted leave to appeal against the ruling in Misc. App. No. 1786 of 2022.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
  • Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2020 fixed for hearing on 4th December 2025 at 9:30 am.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Time Limits
Where there is no automatic right of appeal, there is no specific time limit within which to lodge an application for leave to appeal, though it should be lodged within reasonable time. It is only after leave has been granted that the court sets the time within which to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Grounds for Grant
Before granting leave to appeal, the applicant must show that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, that there is a substantial question of law, and that the proceedings were manifested by a miscarriage of justice that merits consideration by the appellate court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Evaluation of Evidence Insufficient
Grounds of appeal that relate solely to evaluation of evidence and do not raise serious points of law do not meet the requirements for grant of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (5)

  • Musa Sbeity & Cyber Auto Services v Akello Joan (Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2018)
  • Ojoro Otto Julius v Okwero Benson (Miscellaneous Application No. 023 of 2017)
  • Sango Bay Estates ltd. vs. Dresdner Bank and Anor 1971 E.A.
  • Alley Route Ltd v Uganda Development Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 634 of 2004)
  • 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.

Luwanga_David_Mulengani_and_Another_v_Tabuley_Julius_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._3344_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_353_(4_November_2025)
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.