Wakilii

Ndungutse Andrew v Nsaba Pangarasi and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 0002 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1420 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court ruling dismissing application on preliminary points of law
Decision
Appeal dismissed for lack of leave to appeal; matter remitted to lower court for continuation of main suit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 9 (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 9 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 10 citing cases on record, 8 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

Held that no appeal lies as of right from a ruling on a preliminary objection under Order 6 Rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules without leave of court, as such rulings are interlocutory and not among the orders appealable as of right under Order 44 Rule 1. The appeal was incompetent for lack of leave. On the merits, the trial Magistrate properly exercised discretion in dismissing the application to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, as the preliminary points could be determined within the main suit. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for lack of leave to appeal; matter remitted to lower court for continuation of main suit

Facts

The Appellant filed a chamber summons in the Chief Magistrate's Court seeking declarations that Gasiza Community Medicine Distributors was a non-existent body incapable of suing, that the Respondents lacked legal capacity to file a counterclaim, and that the Respondents' defence disclosed no cause of action. The trial Magistrate dismissed the application on 29 June 2023, holding that it had been brought under a wrong procedure and that the preliminary points of law could be properly determined within the main suit, Civil Suit No. 0011 of 2022. The Appellant appealed to the High Court without seeking or obtaining leave to appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal lies as of right from a ruling dismissing a preliminary objection on a point of law without leave of court.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in characterising the application as an abuse of court process and a waste of court time.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in holding that the procedure by which the Appellant raised his preliminary objection was wrong.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent.
  • File of the lower court remitted for continuation of Civil Suit No. 0011 of 2022 in accordance with the trial magistrate's earlier direction.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Right of Appeal — Interlocutory Orders
No appeal lies as of right from a ruling dismissing a preliminary objection on a point of law under Order 6 Rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as such rulings are interlocutory orders not falling within the category of orders appealable as of right under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Leave of court must first be obtained.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Statutory Right — No Inherent Right
The right of appeal is not inherent but exists only when expressly conferred by statute. Where no right of appeal exists, none can be implied.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Multiplicity of Proceedings
A court has inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of its own process even where no party raises it. Filing a separate application by chamber summons to raise points of law that could properly be handled within the main suit amounts to a misuse of procedure and an abuse of court process, particularly where it creates multiplicity of proceedings arising from the same facts.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Procedure for Raising
While Order 6 Rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules entitles a party to raise a point of law in their pleadings, it does not bar a party from raising the same at trial or through a separate application. However, the discretion on how to proceed with the determination of the point of law raised lies with the trial judicial officer.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (SCCA No. 0017 of 2002)
  • Attorney General v Shah [1971] EA 50
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (SCCA No. 10 of 1997)
  • Kasirye, Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank [2008] 2 EA 293
  • Machanga Investments Ltd v Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 0025 of 2002)
  • Gaso Transport Services Bus Limited v Martin Adala Obene (SCCA No. 0004 of 1996)
  • Sankar versus State of Orissa [1992] AIR 1628 (SC)
  • Mutesasira Noah and Others v Nakalemajane Kayondo (HCMA No. 256 of 2016)
  • Opoka Odwong v Gulu Local Government (HC Miscellaneous Appeal No. 014 of 1996)

Cases citing this judgment (9)

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.

Ndungutse Andrew v Nsaba Pangarasi and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 0002 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 1420 (13 November 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.