Wakilii

Mukibi Ibrahim v Sheroba Fred and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 234 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 444 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time and extension of time to appeal against a Chief Magistrate's Court judgment, following an earlier unsuccessful appeal to the High Court
Decision
Application dismissed; applicant denied leave to appeal out of time

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 out of time. The court held that the intended appeal was res judicata because the High Court had already heard and determined Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2020 arising from the same Civil Suit No. 51 of 2020 on merit. The court would be functus officio to entertain another appeal from the same suit. The preliminary objection based on lis pendens was overruled as there was insufficient proof of a pending appeal in the Court of Appeal.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicant denied leave to appeal out of time

Facts

The applicant was the successful party in Civil Suit No. 51 of 2020 at Mbale Chief Magistrate's Court, where the trial court ordered the first respondent to hand over half of the suit land to the applicant. The respondents appealed to the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2020, which upheld the lower court's decision. The applicant contended that the trial court made a mathematical error in computing the measurements of the land to be handed over: the court ordered 60 ft by 69 ft, which the applicant argued was a quarter rather than half of the total 120 ft by 138 ft. The applicant first attempted to rectify this through Miscellaneous Application No. 47 of 2024 in the High Court using the slip rule, but was advised to file with the trial court. He then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2024 in the trial court, where the magistrate advised him to appeal instead. The applicant then sought leave to appeal out of time. The respondents opposed, arguing that the intended appeal was res judicata and barred by lis pendens, as they had filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal challenging the High Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2020.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is barred by the doctrine of lis pendens under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether the intended appeal is res judicata, the High Court having already determined Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2020 arising from the same suit.
  3. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal out of time and extension of time to file an appeal.

Orders

  • The first preliminary objection based on lis pendens is overruled.
  • The second preliminary objection based on res judicata is upheld.
  • The application is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Costs are awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Application for Leave to Appeal — Same Suit Already Determined on Appeal
Where a High Court has heard and determined an appeal arising from a lower court judgment on merit, the High Court is functus officio and cannot entertain a subsequent application for leave to appeal against the same lower court judgment, as such an appeal would be res judicata.
Civil Procedure — Lis Pendens — Proof of Pending Appeal — Court of Appeal Serial Number
For the doctrine of lis pendens to apply based on a pending appeal in the Court of Appeal, there must be proof that the appeal was actually instituted in the Court of Appeal, including evidence of a serial number allotted upon filing of the memorandum of appeal as required by Rule 10(3) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions. A notice of appeal filed in the High Court without proof of filing in the Court of Appeal or allocation of a serial number is insufficient to establish lis pendens.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Factors for Consideration
When considering an application for extension of time to appeal, the court must consider whether the applicant has shown that the intended appeal has reasonable chances of success or that there are arguable grounds and the applicant has not been guilty of dilatory conduct.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal No. 16 of 1996)
  • Attorney General v John Amram Wagabyalire (HCMA No. 302 of 2023)
  • Caesarstone Sdit- Yam Ltd V. The world of Marble and Granite 2000 CC and Othere (741/12) [2013] ZASCA
  • Ayuga v Doka (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukibi Ibrahim v Sheroba Fred and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 234 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 444 (4 May 2026)
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.