Mukwaya v Katarangye (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024)

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.

Holding

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed for lack of supporting affidavit evidence. Court held that where grounds of application rest on statements of fact, supporting affidavit evidence is mandatory under Order 52 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant's notice of motion, citing factual grounds but presenting no affidavit, was misconceived in form and content. The court further found that the underlying decision arose from Order 36 Summary Procedure, which would require leave to appeal in any event.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Facts

The Applicant sought unconditional leave to appeal out of time from a Chief Magistrate's Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 53 of 2017. In that underlying suit, the Respondent obtained judgment for UGX 24,000,000 against the Applicant. Upon failure to pay, the Applicant was committed to civil prison. The Applicant claimed he was not served with notices, had no debt, was imprisoned for six months, and that property worth UGX 80,000,000 was taken by a bailiff without court order. The Respondent denied these claims and stated only UGX 600,000 had been paid toward bailiff's costs. The Applicant filed his application by Notice of Motion without supporting affidavit evidence. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection on this ground and further argued that the underlying decision arose from Order 36 Summary Procedure, which does not confer an automatic right of appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicant has a right to appeal from a decision made under Order 36 Summary Procedure.
2. Whether an application for leave to appeal out of time is properly brought by Notice of Motion without supporting affidavit evidence.

Orders

• Application dismissed for lack of evidence contrary to Order 52 Rule 3 justifying leave to appeal and leave to appeal out of time.
• Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rules 1, 2 and 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36
• Civil Procedure Act s.76(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 Rule 2
• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (2)

• C Patel v BD Joshi (1952) 19 EACA 42
• Odongkara v Kamada [1968] EA 210

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