Wakilii

Mukiibi and Another v Ssentongo (Miscellaneous Application No. 88 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 251 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against ruling allowing reinstatement of dismissed suit
Decision
Application dismissed — leave to appeal refused

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

An application for leave to appeal against a ruling allowing reinstatement of a dismissed suit was dismissed. The court held that leave to appeal will be granted where there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration or the appeal has a realistic prospect of success. The applicants failed to demonstrate points of law meriting judicial consideration on appeal, having merely repeated objections already determined by the court in exercise of its discretion. The intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success.

Outcome

Application dismissed — leave to appeal refused

Facts

The applicants sought leave to appeal against a ruling delivered on 30 June 2020 which allowed Miscellaneous Application No. 031 of 2019 to reinstate Civil Suit No. 049 of 2014 that had been dismissed under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicants contended that the respondent had previously filed Miscellaneous Application No. 205 of 2017 seeking the same orders, which was dismissed for having been served out of time, and that the subsequent application was res judicata and also served out of time. The respondent opposed the application on grounds that it was an abuse of court process and the grounds of appeal did not raise substantial questions of law. The court had previously overruled the applicants' objections in MA No. 031 of 2019 after determining that service out of time was occasioned by court administration delays and that MA No. 205 of 2017 had not been heard on its merits.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the application raises points of law meriting serious judicial consideration.
  2. Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Costs to be in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Test for Grant — Points of Law Meriting Serious Judicial Consideration
Leave to appeal from an order in civil proceedings will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, or where the order from which it is sought to appeal was made in the exercise of judicial discretion and the applicant establishes points of law or issues of fact which would merit judicial consideration on appeal or that the appeal has a high prospect of success.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Prospect of Success — Realistic versus Fanciful
A real prospect of success means that the prospect for success must be realistic rather than fanciful. A realistic prospect of success is more than just probable or highly likely. It should be clear from the application and circumstances that realistically the appeal will be granted, and not merely represent dissatisfaction by the applicant. It is not sufficient for an applicant to state in the application or affidavit that the appeal has a likelihood of success.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Repetition of Previously Determined Objections
Where grounds advanced in support of an application for leave to appeal are the same objections that were raised and determined by the court in the exercise of its discretion after due consideration of the law, facts and circumstances, and the applicant has not proved that the orders were made in error occasioning a miscarriage of justice, the grounds do not constitute points of law meriting judicial consideration on appeal.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Sango Bay Estate v Dresdner Bank & Attorney General [1971] EA 17
  • Andrew Kibirige Lutwama v Haruna Kato (Miscellaneous Application No. 920 of 2013)
  • Sobetra (U) Ltd and Another v Leads Insurance Ltd (HCMA No. 377 of 2013)
  • Sbeity and Another v Akello (Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2018)
  • Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukiibi and Another v Ssentongo (Miscellaneous Application No. 88 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 251 (29 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.