Wakilii

Mulongo Khza Joseph v Makubuya Augustine (Miscellaneous Application No. 0071 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 928 · 2025 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal and extension of time arising from High Court Revision Cause
Decision
Application struck out as incompetent

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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 held that revision decisions under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act are final and not appealable. Since the statute does not prescribe a right of appeal against revision decisions, and appeals are creatures of statute, the application for leave to appeal and extension of time was incompetent and struck out.

Outcome

Application struck out as incompetent

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant for trespass in the LCII Court of Kateera ward, which found in favour of the respondent. The respondent then moved the Chief Magistrate's Court at Kiboga for execution. The applicant filed Revision Cause No. 001 of 2022 at Mubende High Court challenging the Chief Magistrate's jurisdiction, which was dismissed. The applicant then brought this application seeking leave to appeal the revision decision and extension of time to file the appeal, claiming the court overlooked issues of res judicata and pecuniary jurisdiction. The respondent opposed, arguing the application was an afterthought brought after receiving an eviction notice.

Issues

  1. Whether a decision arising from a revision application can be appealed.
  2. Whether the High Court should grant leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal a revision decision.

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Revision — Appealability of Revision Decisions
A decision of the High Court in a revision application under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act is final and not appealable, as the statute does not prescribe a right of appeal against revision decisions.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Statutory Right
An appeal is a creature of statute and the right to prefer an appeal, whether as of right or with leave, must be expressly stated in the statute.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Revision as Supervisory Jurisdiction
Revision is a mechanism through which the High Court exercises its supervisory powers over Magistrate's Courts under Section 17 of the Judicature Act, and decisions made in exercise of this supervisory jurisdiction are final.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Attorney General v Shall (No. 4) [1971] 1 EA 50
  • Baku Raphael Obudra v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Faustine Ntambara v Benon Subujisho (SCCA No. 008 of 2021)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Mulongo Khza Joseph v Makubuya Augustine (Miscellaneous Application No. 0071 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 928 (18 August 2025)
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.