Wakilii

Migadde and Ors v Nakibuule and Ors (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2019)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 4 · 2021 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment concerning easement rights and right of way
Decision
Appeal dismissed as incompetent without consideration of the merits

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 High Court dismissed the appeal as incompetent on three independent grounds: the appeal was filed four days out of time without good cause shown; no formal decree was extracted and filed with the memorandum of appeal as required by section 220(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act; and the amended memorandum of appeal was filed without leave of court. Additionally, four of five grounds of appeal were struck out for being argumentative and narrative, in breach of Order 43 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as incompetent without consideration of the merits

Facts

The respondents sued the appellants in the Chief Magistrate's Court seeking a declaration of a right of way through the appellants' land. The respondents claimed their father had purchased land from the first appellant's grandmother in 1971 and had used an access road running through what later became the appellants' property. In 2011, the appellants interfered with this access. The appellants defended the claim arguing the respondents' land touched the main Gayaza Road and that the respondents were using containers for commercial purposes on the boundary touching that road. The Chief Magistrate delivered judgment on 2 April 2019 in favour of the respondents, finding an easement existed, awarding general damages of UGX 15,000,000 and granting a permanent injunction. The appellants filed their memorandum of appeal on 6 May 2019, four days after the thirty-day statutory period expired.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit under section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether failure to extract a formal decree before filing the appeal rendered the appeal incompetent.
  3. Whether the amended Memorandum of Appeal filed without leave of court was competent.
  4. Whether the grounds of appeal complied with Order 43 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2019 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Time for Filing Appeal
An appeal from a Magistrate's Court to the High Court must be entered within thirty days from the date of the decree or order under section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act. Where an appeal is filed after the expiry of this period without good cause shown under section 79(2), the appeal is incompetent and must be dismissed.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Formal Requirements — Extraction of Decree
Under section 220(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act, an appeal lies from the decrees of Magistrates' Courts to the High Court. A memorandum of appeal must be filed together with an extracted decree. Failure to extract and file a formal decree renders the appeal incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment Without Leave
Where an amended memorandum of appeal is filed without obtaining leave of court, the amended memorandum is incompetent. Although Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits amendments at any stage, the rule requires that it is the court that allows such amendments, and where pleadings have been closed, parties must seek permission from court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Form and Content
Under Order 43 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a memorandum of appeal must set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from without any argument or narrative. Grounds of appeal that contain argumentative or narrative language offend this rule and must be struck out.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (12)

  • Selle and Another v Associated Motor-Boat Ltd and Others (1968) EA 123
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and Others (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Barclays Bank v Patel (1970) EA 88
  • Fowler and Another v Busingye (Miscellaneous Application No. 111 of 2013)
  • Luzinda George v Edward Waswwa (High Court Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2009)
  • Mbambu Stella v Monday Nicholas (High Court Civil Suit No. 10 of 2016)
  • Mbukara Mumbere v Maimuna Mbabazi (High Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2003)
  • Mbambu Stella v Monday Nicholas (Fortportal High Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2016)
  • Mulowoza & Brothers v N. Shah & Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Kiiza v Attorney General (1986) HCB 71
  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Air Services (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2003)
  • Kizito Mpumpi v Seruga Frank (Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2010)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Migadde_and_Ors_v_Nakibuule_and_Ors_(Civil_Appeal_No._53_of_2019)_[2021]_UGHCLD_4_(22_January_2021)
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.