Wakilii

Ronald Malcom Kasozi and Sitreck Group Ltd. v Arthur Luyombo and Others (Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 398 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from dismissal of review application in Chief Magistrates Court
Decision
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction due to failure to obtain leave to appeal

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

Held that an appeal from a dismissal of a review application requires leave of court under Order 44 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. An automatic right of appeal under Order 44 rule 1(t) exists only where a review application has been granted, not where it has been dismissed. Since the appellants filed their appeal without first obtaining leave, the appeal was incompetent and the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The preliminary objection was sustained and the appeal dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction due to failure to obtain leave to appeal

Facts

The 1st Respondent filed a suit in the Chief Magistrates Court at Makindye seeking an access road to his property. The parties entered partial consent agreements during mediation and at a locus visit, granting the 1st Respondent an access road. The Appellants, who were landlords and title holders but not original parties to the suit, filed a review application seeking to set aside the orders made at the locus visit. The trial Magistrate dismissed the review application, advising the Appellants to file a civil suit in the High Court. The Appellants appealed the dismissal without first seeking leave to appeal. The 3rd Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent for lack of leave.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to appeal was required before filing an appeal from a dismissal of a review application.
  2. Whether the appeal was competent without prior leave of court.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection sustained.
  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st and 3rd Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Dismissal of Review Application
An appeal from an order dismissing a review application requires leave of court under Order 44 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. An automatic right of appeal under Order 44 rule 1(t) exists only where a review application has been granted under Order 46 rule 4, not where it has been dismissed under Order 46 rule 3.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Competence of Appeal — Want of Leave
Where an appeal is filed without the requisite leave of court, the appeal is incompetent and the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. Arguments on the merits, including arguments that mistakes of counsel should not prejudice innocent litigants, cannot cure a jurisdictional defect arising from want of leave.
Civil Procedure — Right of Appeal — Statutory Creature
The right to appeal is a creature of statute. Where there is no automatic right of appeal, a party must seek leave of court before filing an appeal.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (11)

  • Dr Sheik Ahmed Muhammed Kasule v Green Land Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Yowasi Kabiguruka Vs Samuel Byarafu C.C.A No. 18 of 2008
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1997)
  • [1987] HCB 64
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1996)
  • Col Dr. Kizza Besigye Vs Museveni & Anor EP No. 1 of 2001
  • [1971] EA 50
  • Kayaga Vs Waligo Misc. Application No. 80/2012
  • Robinnah Matanda and Others v PR Patel and Another (Court of Appeal No. 258 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ronald_Malcom_Kasozi_and_Sitreck_Group_Ltd._v_Arthur_Luyombo_and_Others_(Civil_Appeal_No._68_of_2023)_[2025]_UGHCLD_398_(8_December_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.