The Kabaka of Buganda v Kibuule Ronald & Another (Civil Appeal 369 of 2021)
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
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without considering its merits because neither party filed the written submissions the Court had directed within the timeframes set. The Court held that an appeal can only be determined once the parties argue the framed grounds through submissions identifying the lower court decisions complained of; the parties' failure to file signified they were no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal. Noting that the appeal raised complex issues concerning land owned by traditional rulers and that the Namasole (a relative of the appellant) was not a party, the Court inferred the parties may have resolved the dispute amicably and that the appeal was no longer necessary.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; each party to bear own costs
Facts
The first respondent filed Civil Suit 153 of 2019 against the second respondent (the Commissioner Land Registration) seeking declarations that he was a bona fide purchaser for value of land at Kyaggwe Block 369 Plot 10 at Golomolo, that the deletion of his name from the certificate of title was illegal, and an order restoring his name to the title, plus general damages and costs. The High Court decided in the plaintiff's favour and ordered restoration of his name. The appellant, the Kabaka of Buganda, was not a party to that suit. He filed an application to review the judgment, which David Batema J dismissed on 12 July 2021 for lack of merit. The appellant appealed that ruling. At the hearing the Court regularised the appeal under Rule 42. The Court directed the parties to file submissions, but neither party did so.
Issues
- Whether the appeal could be determined where both parties failed to file the submissions directed by the Court.
Orders
- The Appeal is hereby dismissed.
- Each party to bear their own costs in this Appeal.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Court of Appeal Rules r.42
- Traditional Rulers (Restoration of Assets and Properties) Act Cap 247
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.