Wakilii

Musiisi v Kanakulya (Civil Appeal No. 171 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 10 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from a decision of the High Court sitting as first appellate court, itself on appeal from the Chief Magistrates Court
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed with costs to the respondent

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. 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

On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the appellant, who bore the burden of proving that the first appeal was filed out of time and the duty to file a complete record of appeal, discharged neither, and that section 79(2) of the CPA excludes time taken to prepare the record. It further held that the first appellate court had properly re-evaluated the evidence and correctly reversed the trial court's finding of fraud (which had not been pleaded with particularity) and the award of general damages. The Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007 on visiting the locus in quo applies to registered land and was inapplicable, so the omission did not vitiate the judgment.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The appellant, as co-administrator of the estate of the late Abdul Keeri Ssali, sued the respondent in the Chief Magistrates Court of Mukono for recovery of two bibanjas comprised in Block 162 Plots 65 and 66, contending they formed part of the deceased's estate. The claim over Plot 65 was later abandoned by amendment. The trial court found for the appellant, holding the respondent had bought only one plot and acquired only a kibanja interest, and that the certificate of title had been fraudulently obtained and should be cancelled. The respondent successfully appealed to the High Court, which found the trial court had misdirected itself on the evidence and had wrongly determined fraud without any pleading or proof thereof. Evidence showed the deceased's land had bona fide occupants, some of whom sold their kibanja interests to the respondent. The appellant's evidence contained contradictions on the number of bibanjas, and witness PW3 did not know the boundaries. The appellant lodged a second appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the first appellate court erred in entertaining an appeal alleged to have been filed out of time.
  2. Whether the first appellate court failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence on record and thereby reached a wrong decision.

Orders

  • Ground 1 of the appeal disallowed.
  • Ground 2 of the appeal disallowed.
  • Appeal dismissed in its entirety.
  • Costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Limitation — Exclusion of time taken to prepare record under CPA s.79(2)
In computing the limitation period for an appeal under section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, the time taken by the court in preparing a copy of the decree and the record of proceedings on which it is founded is excluded, and a party alleging that an appeal was filed out of time bears the burden of proving that allegation.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty to file a complete record of appeal
An appellant bears the primary duty to file a record of appeal that comprehensively addresses all matters he considers in contention, and failure to place material on record supporting his own allegations cannot be cured by an opponent's supplementary submissions.
Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Restricted scope of re-evaluation of evidence
A second appellate court is not required to re-evaluate the evidence as a first appellate court would, but is restricted to determining whether the first appellate court discharged its duty to re-evaluate the evidence and may interfere only where it misapplied or failed to apply the applicable principles.
Evidence — Pleading of Fraud — Requirement of specificity
Fraud must be specifically pleaded with particulars sufficient to put the opposing party on notice of the claims against him; a general allegation of land grabbing does not satisfy the requisite specificity, and a court cannot make a finding of fraud that was neither pleaded nor proved.
Land & Property — Locus in quo — Applicability of Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007 to registered land only
Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007 governing visits to the locus in quo applies to disputes concerning registered land affecting tenants by occupancy; where the land in issue is unregistered, the omission to visit the locus in quo does not in itself impeach the resultant judgment.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Requirement of a tortious act
General damages are aimed at restoring a claimant to the position he would have been in but for the defendant's wrongful act; where no tortious act or omission on the defendant's part is established, an award of general damages cannot stand.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Muluta v Katama (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1999)
  • Kasifa Namusisi and Others v Francis M.K. Ntabaazi (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2005)
  • Jiwan v Gohil (1948) 15 EACA 36
  • R. G. Patel v Lalji Makaiji (1957) EA 314
  • Henry Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Musiisi v Kanakulya (Civil Appeal No. 171 of 2015) [2022] UGCA 10 (25 January 2022)
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.