Wakilii

SM Sebowa and Family Limited v Maana Harvestors International Limited (Civil Application 11 of 2022)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 44 · 2023 Application Referred to Full Bench AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single justice of the Supreme Court for an order that the respondent furnish further security for costs and security for past costs, arising from a pending civil appeal.
Decision
Application not determined by the single justice; referred to the full bench of five Justices of the Supreme Court for determination together with the pending appeal, costs to abide the outcome.

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

The single justice declined to determine the application for further security for costs. The respondent had raised a point of law that the underlying appeal to the Court of Appeal was incompetent because leave to appeal an order made under Order 36 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules was never obtained, which touches the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear the pending appeal. Holding that such a jurisdictional point of law cannot be entertained by a single justice and has the potential to dispose of both appeals, the justice ordered that the application be placed before the full bench of five Justices together with the appeal, with costs to abide the outcome.

Outcome

Application not determined by the single justice; referred to the full bench of five Justices of the Supreme Court for determination together with the pending appeal, costs to abide the outcome.

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent in HCCS No. 034 of 2016 to recover leased land by eviction after the respondent failed to pay an outstanding premium of about USD 204,000 and annual ground rent of UGX 2,000,000. A summary suit yielded a default judgment and an eviction decree with costs, which were taxed at UGX 48,955,000; the applicant auctioned three tractors and recovered UGX 22,250,000, leaving UGX 26,705,000 outstanding. The High Court later set aside the default judgment (HCMA No. 591 of 2016). The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 161 of 2017), which decided in its favour by a 2:1 majority with a dissent. The respondent then appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2021), which was fixed for hearing. The applicant brought the present application for further security for costs, asserting the respondent had no known assets or address in Uganda and that the appeal lacked merit.

Issues

  1. Whether an application for further security for costs is appropriate for determination by a single justice of the Supreme Court where a point of law affecting the court's jurisdiction has been raised.
  2. Whether the point of law that the appeal to the Court of Appeal was incompetent for want of leave under Order 36 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules ought to be determined before the application for security for costs.
  3. Whether, where leave to appeal is required but not obtained, there is a competent appeal before the Court of Appeal and, by extension, before the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • The application is to be placed before the full bench of five Justices of the Supreme Court, together with the respondent's appeal in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2021, for resolution of the respondent's point of law on whether there is jurisdiction to hear an appeal in this matter.
  • The costs incurred thus far shall abide the outcome of the determination of the matters referred to the Supreme Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Single Justice Jurisdiction — Interlocutory Applications — Points of Law Affecting Jurisdiction
A single justice of the Supreme Court exercising interlocutory powers under section 8(1) of the Judicature Act cannot determine a point of law that affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear an appeal; such a point must be reserved for and decided by the full bench.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Competence — Orders under Order 36 rule 11 CPR
Where leave to appeal is required, as for an order made under Order 36 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and no genuine steps are taken to obtain that leave in the High Court or the Court of Appeal, there is no competent appeal before the Court of Appeal and, by extension, no competent appeal before the Supreme Court.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Source in Statute
Appellate jurisdiction springs only from statute and must be specifically created by law; it cannot be inferred or implied.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (15)

  • KCB Bank (U) Ltd v Formula Feeds Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2020)
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v AK Detergents (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Paul Nyamarere & 3 Others v Dison Okumu & 6 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2020)
  • Kakooza Jonathan & Another v Kasaala Cooperative Society Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2011)
  • Fang Min v Belex Tours and Travel Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
  • Lalji Gangji v Nathoo Vassanjee (1960) EA 315
  • Kasaala Growers Cooperative Society v Jonathan Katemera Edson (Civil Application No. 24 of 2010)
  • Premchand v Quarry Services Ltd [1971] EA 172
  • Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment & Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2011)
  • Sheik Ahmed Mohammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in Liquidation) (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010)
  • Makhangu v Kibwana [1995-1998] 1 EA 175
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdner Bank A.G. (1971) EA 17
  • Natongo Burashe v Kekitiibwa Mangadalena (Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50
  • Baku Raphael Obudra and Obiga Kania v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)

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.

SM Sebowa and Family Limited v Maana Harvestors International Limited (Civil Application 11 of 2022) [2023] UGSC 44 (2 August 2023)
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.