Sekyanzi v Prof . Wavamuno (Miscellaneous Application 37 of 2020)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On an application for leave to file a third appeal after the Court of Appeal refused a certificate of public importance, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that under section 6(5) of the Judicature Act it is not restricted, like the Court of Appeal, to questions of law of great public or general importance; it may grant leave whenever, in its overall duty to see that justice is done, it considers the appeal should be heard. Given the constitutional questions under Article 237 on land ownership and bonafide occupancy, and that the applicant had stayed on inherited land for many years, the court found it just that the intended appeal be heard. The application was allowed and leave granted.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal granted; applicant permitted to file a third appeal to the Supreme Court

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent in the Chief Magistrates Court of Entebbe over a kibanja of about three acres at Vubufu village, Katabi sub-county, Wakiso District, which he claimed to have inherited under Ganda custom from his late father, who died in 1985. The Chief Magistrates Court held the applicant to be a bonafide occupant and ordered compensation; the High Court upheld that decision on the respondent's appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's further appeal, set aside the lower decisions, and held that a kibanja is not a customary holding under Article 237(3) of the Constitution but falls under mailo tenure recognised under Article 237(8). The applicant sought a certificate of public importance from the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was refused, prompting this application for leave to appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant's intended third appeal raises one or more matters of great public or general importance warranting a grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. Whether, in order to do justice, the Supreme Court should grant leave for the intended appeal to be heard.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• Leave granted to the applicant to appeal against the Court of Appeal decision delivered on 19 June 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 240 of 2013.
• Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Judicature Act s.6(2)
• Judicature Act s.6(5)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, SI 13-10, Rule 39(1)(b)
• Land Act s.29(2)(a)
• Land Act s.29(5)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(3)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(8)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(9)

Cases cited (8)

• Kampala District Land Board v Venansio Babweyaka (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997)
• Hermanus Phillippus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi Ruscone (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 4 of 2010)
• Charles Lwanga Masengere v God Kabagambe (Civil Application No. 125 of 2009)
• Namuddu Christine v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1999)
• Atai Hellen Doreen v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 19 of 2020)
• Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v Kenya Export Floriculture, Horticulture and Allied Workers Union (Civil Application No. 5 of 2017)
• Asumani Mugyenyi v M. Buwuule (Civil Application No. 245 of 2011)
• Rex v Mohamed Shah s/o Lal Shah (1939) 6 EACA 103

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.

• Tinkamanyire v Kihika & Another (Civil Application 34 of 2020)

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