Wakilii

Silver Springs Hotel Limited & Others v The Attorney General (Miscellaneous Appeal 8 of 1988)

High Court · [1988] UGHC 2 Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on jurisdiction following the judge's appointment to the Supreme Court during the pendency of a High Court appeal under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982
Decision
Appeal to be heard by another judge of the High Court

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 a High Court judge appointed to the Supreme Court retains jurisdiction only to complete proceedings that were substantively commenced before him prior to his appointment. Interlocutory applications do not constitute commencement of the substantive appeal. Where only interlocutory matters were heard and the appeal on merits remains to be heard, the judge has no jurisdiction to proceed after his elevation to the Supreme Court.

Outcome

Appeal to be heard by another judge of the High Court

Facts

Ten appellants appealed against the Attorney General under section 14 of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. On 20 July 1988, Justice Oder dismissed an interlocutory application by the Attorney General seeking dismissal of the appeal and set the substantive appeal for hearing on 19 September 1988. Between those dates, an application for joinder of a party was filed. On 17 June 1988, Justice Oder was appointed to the Supreme Court. When the matter came before him on 19 September 1988, counsel raised the issue of whether he retained jurisdiction to hear the High Court appeal following his elevation. Justice Oder had previously heard two interlocutory applications in the matter and granted a temporary injunction. During argument on the second interlocutory application, one issue relating to the merits of the appeal was touched upon but reserved for full argument at the substantive hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether a judge appointed to the Supreme Court retains jurisdiction to hear and complete a High Court appeal that was pending but not substantively commenced before him prior to his appointment.

Orders

  • The judge ruled that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal on the merits.
  • The application for joinder was not heard.
  • All parties to bear their own costs for the appearance of 19 September 1988.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Judge appointed to Supreme Court — Completion of High Court proceedings commenced before appointment
Where a High Court judge is appointed to the Supreme Court, he may continue to discharge the functions of a High Court judge only as may be necessary to enable him to deliver judgment or do any other thing in relation to proceedings that were commenced before him before his appointment to the Supreme Court.
Constitutional Law — Judicial power — Interpretation of Articles 84, 85 and 89 — Residual High Court jurisdiction after judicial promotion
The combined effect of Articles 84, 85 and 89 of the Constitution is that where a High Court judge is appointed to the Supreme Court, his position as a High Court judge with regard to matters still before him is equivalent to that of an acting judge whose appointment has expired or a judge who has attained retirement age, and he may continue only to complete proceedings that were commenced before him prior to his elevation.
Civil Procedure — Part-heard proceedings — What constitutes commencement of an appeal — Interlocutory applications distinguished from substantive hearing
The hearing of interlocutory applications in an appeal does not constitute commencement of the substantive appeal for the purposes of determining whether proceedings were commenced before a judge prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court. Where only interlocutory issues have been determined and the appeal on merits remains to be heard, the substantive appeal has not been commenced.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (1)

  • HCCS No. 860 of 1982

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Silver Springs Hotel Limited & Others v The Attorney General (Miscellaneous Appeal 8 of 1988) [1988] UGHC 2 (28 September 1988)(2)
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.