Tinka Charles (Admin of the Estate of the Late Kyagwire Yolamu & Kiiza Baalam) v Butera George and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 038 of 2024)
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
Held that an application for leave to appeal must be accompanied by a copy of the decision sought to be appealed 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. The applicant's failure to attach the ruling rendered the application incompetent. Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Outcome
Application dismissed for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirement to attach copy of ruling being appealed
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 been brought to set aside orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 0145 of 2019. The applicant contended that the ruling was irregular, unfair, and unjust, and that the court had ordered partial payment of costs even though this had not been requested. The applicant argued that he had strong legal arguments with a high likelihood of success. The respondents opposed the application, asserting it lacked merit and was an attempt to revive a deceased person's execution and bill of costs application. Critically, the applicant did not attach a copy of the ruling sought to be appealed to the application papers.
Issues
- Whether the application for leave to appeal is competent.
- Whether leave to appeal ought to be granted.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules rule 40
- Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules rule 44
- Civil Procedure Rules order 44 rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules order 44 rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules order 44 rule 4
- Civil Procedure Rules order 52 rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules order 52 rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules order 19 rule 3(1)
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 article 126(2)(e)
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 article 28
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.