Wakilii

Mupapa Paul and Itiko Moses v Mbulyo Fredrick (Miscellaneous Application No. 122 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 955 · 2025 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 dismissal of an application to enlarge time to file an appeal
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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, holding that no valid appeal had been filed because the applicants filed only a Notice of Appeal instead of a Memorandum of Appeal as required by Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that a Notice of Appeal does not constitute an appeal in the High Court and that the applicants failed to prove effective instructions were given to counsel. The intended appeal raised no grounds meriting serious judicial consideration.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Facts

The applicants were dissatisfied with the decision in Kaliro Civil Suit No. 010 of 2023 and lodged a Notice of Appeal in the High Court at Jinja. They did not file a Memorandum of Appeal, and the Notice of Appeal was struck out for offending the law. The applicants then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2023 seeking enlargement of time to file the appeal, which was dismissed with costs. The applicants then brought this application seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the dismissal of MA No. 26 of 2023, arguing that counsel's mistake should not be visited upon them and that the intended appeal raised substantial questions of law. The respondent opposed, contending the application lacked merit and was intended to delay justice.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the dismissal of Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2023.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals to High Court — Commencement — Memorandum of Appeal Required
An appeal to the High Court is commenced by filing a Memorandum of Appeal as required by Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not by filing a Notice of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal — Function in High Court
Under Order 43 Rule 10(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a Notice of Appeal in the High Court is issued by the court itself after receiving a Memorandum of Appeal, not a document to be filed by advocates.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Test for Grant
Leave to appeal will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — Proof Required
For a mistake of counsel to be considered as sufficient ground for relief, the applicant must prove that effective instructions were given to counsel or the law firm which made the mistake.
Administrative Law — Appellate Jurisdiction — Statutory Creation
Appellate jurisdiction must be specifically created by law and cannot be inferred or implied.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdner Bank AG [1971] EA 17
  • GM Combine (U) Ltd v AK Detergents (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1994)
  • Baku Raphael Obudra and Obiga Kania v Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mupapa Paul and Itiko Moses v Mbulyo Fredrick (Miscellaneous Application No. 122 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 955 (29 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.