Wakilii

Tinka Charles (Admin of the Estate of the Late Kyagwire Yolamu & Kiiza Baalam) v Butera George and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 038 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 538 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against a ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 038 of 2021
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents

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 High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal on the ground that it was incompetent. The applicant failed to attach a copy of the ruling sought to be appealed, as required by rule 44(4) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules. The court held that this mandatory requirement could not be cured by invoking Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, as doing so would promote laziness among advocates and allow frivolous appeals.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant, as administrator of an estate, sought leave to appeal against a ruling delivered on 26 April 2024 in Miscellaneous Application No. 038 of 2021. That application had sought to set aside orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 0145 of 2019, which arose from Civil Appeal No. 0059 of 2005. The applicant claimed the ruling was irregular, unfair, and unjust, particularly regarding a costs order. The respondents opposed the application, arguing it lacked merit and was an attempt to revive a deceased person's execution and bill of costs application. The applicant did not attach a copy of the ruling sought to be appealed to the motion or supporting affidavit.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for leave to appeal is competent.
  2. Whether leave to appeal ought to be granted.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Mandatory Requirements — Failure to Attach Copy of Ruling
An application for leave to appeal must be accompanied by a copy of the decision against which it is desired to appeal, as required by rule 44(4) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules. This requirement is mandatory and cannot be cured by invoking Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (4)

  • Musa Sbeity v Akello Joan (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0249 of 2018)
  • Swain v. Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
  • 5CCA No. 023/94 G.M Combined Vs A.K Detergents
  • Sango Bay Vs Dresdner [1971] EA 17

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tinka Charles (Admin of the Estate of the Late Kyagwire Yolamu & Kiiza Baalam) v Butera George and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 038 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 538 (29 April 2026)
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.