Wakilii

Lwanga vs. Kabagambe (Civil Application No. 125 of 2009)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 22 · 2015 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for a certificate that an intended third appeal to the Supreme Court concerns a matter of law of great public or general importance
Decision
Application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court dismissed with costs

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 31 citing cases on record, 13 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 dismissed an application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court under section 6(2) of the Judicature Act. To grant a certificate the Court must be satisfied the intended appeal concerns a matter of law of great public or general importance. The question whether 3,000 acres is too big for a customary holding was a question of fact, not law, and did not form the ratio decidendi of the appealed judgment, which turned on an unaccepted lease offer. Adopting the Kenyan Steyn principles, the Court held the applicant bore the onus and had adduced no evidence of public or general importance. The Court's power, unlike the Supreme Court's, is restricted to questions of law.

Outcome

Application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant sued the respondents for trespass to land in the Mityana Chief Magistrate's Court (Civil Suit No. 34/2001), describing himself as owner and asserting that his late father held a lease offer over the land. He obtained judgment, but on appeal to the High Court at Nakawa (Civil Appeal No. 27/2004) the respondents succeeded. The applicant's further appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 58/2008) was dismissed with costs; the Court found his claim was based on a lease offer never accepted, that any customary tenancy was at sufferance, and that his claim over 3,000 acres was too large to be a customary holding. The applicant sought a certificate to mount a third appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the appeal raised questions of law of great public or general importance, principally whether 3,000 acres is too big to constitute a customary holding. The respondents did not appear at the hearing despite service. Applicant's counsel conceded that the original suit was based on a lease offer, not customary tenure.

Issues

  1. Whether the intended appeal raises a question of law of great public or general importance under section 6(2) of the Judicature Act warranting a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the question of whether 3,000 acres is too big to constitute a customary holding is a question of law or of fact.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal has power to certify an appeal on grounds outside the ambit of section 6(2) of the Judicature Act.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Certificate for Third Appeal — Section 6(2) Judicature Act — Matter of Law of Great Public or General Importance
The Court of Appeal may grant a certificate for a third appeal to the Supreme Court under section 6(2) of the Judicature Act only where the intended appeal concerns a matter of law that is either of great public importance or of general importance, and the onus lies on the applicant to satisfy the Court by evidence that such a question arises.
Appeals — Certificate for Third Appeal — Distinction Between Questions of Law and Questions of Fact
What constitutes a customary tenancy must be proved as a fact, and the question whether a given acreage is too large to constitute a customary holding is a question of fact, not a question of law, and therefore cannot ground a certificate under section 6(2) of the Judicature Act.
Appeals — Certificate for Third Appeal — Question Must Form Ratio Decidendi and Have Been Judicially Determined
A certificate for a third appeal cannot be granted on a question that did not form the ratio decidendi of the judgment sought to be appealed and was not a subject of judicial determination in the lower courts.
Appeals — Powers of Court of Appeal Distinguished from Supreme Court — Restricted to Questions of Law
Unlike the Supreme Court, whose power to grant leave extends to anything relevant to doing justice, the Court of Appeal's power on an application for a certificate is restricted to questions of law of great public or general importance and it cannot consider matters outside the ambit of section 6(2) of the Judicature Act.
Section 6(2) Judicature Act — Meaning of 'Great Public Importance' and 'General Importance'
Where the statute does not define 'great public importance' or 'general importance', a matter qualifies where its determination transcends the circumstances of the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest; mere apprehension of a miscarriage of justice or determinations of fact between parties are not a proper basis for certification.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Hermanus Phillippus Steyn vs Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone Application No. 4 of 2010 (Supreme Court of Kenya)
  • Kampala District Land Board and Another v Babweyaka and Others (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Kalya and Another v Ikagobya (Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2012)
  • Namudu Christine v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1999)

Cases citing this judgment (29)

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.

Lwanga vs. Kabagambe (Civil Application No. 125 of 2009) [2015] UGCA 22 (16 February 2015)
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.