Wakilii

Trade Envoys Limited v Wanyama & Another (Civil Appeal 106 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 198 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from a decision of the High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, which had quashed two consolidated first appeals and ordered a retrial
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court orders set aside and Civil Appeals No. 73 & 74 reinstated and remitted to the High Court at Jinja for fresh hearing.

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

On a second appeal the Court of Appeal considered whether the High Court, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, was justified in quashing two consolidated appeals and ordering a retrial because the trial record was incomplete. The Court held that a second appeal lies only on points of law, that whether the record was available was a question of fact, and that an appellate court may order a retrial where a crucial part of the record is genuinely missing and reconstruction is impossible. The appeal was dismissed; but because the missing witness evidence had since been supplied, the High Court orders were set aside and the first appeals reinstated and remitted to the High Court at Jinja for fresh hearing.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the High Court orders set aside and Civil Appeals No. 73 & 74 reinstated and remitted to the High Court at Jinja for fresh hearing.

Facts

Trade Envoys Limited filed two suits for trespass on land comprised in LRV 888 Folio 17 Kyaggwe Block 107 Plot 1185 at Kauga village, Mukono — one against Wanyama Wilson and one against Mugisha Edward. The suits were consolidated and the Magistrate's Court at Mukono delivered one judgment on 22 May 2009: the claim against the first respondent was sustained, he was declared a trespasser, ordered to vacate and pay 2,000,000/= general damages and costs; the suit against the second respondent was dismissed with judgment on his counterclaim. Both sides appealed to the High Court at Jinja (Civil Appeals No. 73 and 74 of 2009), which were consolidated. On 16 November 2012 the High Court (Flavia Senoga Anglin, J.) quashed both appeals and ordered a retrial, finding that the lower court files were not availed and that the record of appeal lacked the evidence of three defence witnesses (DW2, DW3 and DW4) relied on by the trial court. The appellant brought this second appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the first appellate court was justified in ordering a retrial on the basis of an incomplete record of the lower court proceedings.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • This appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • The judgment and orders of the first appellate Court are set aside.
  • Civil Appeals No. 73 & 74 of the High Court of Uganda at Jinja are reinstated and the file remitted for expeditious hearing and determination.
  • The Registrar of the Court is directed to remit the files to the High Court of Uganda at Jinja within seven days from the date of judgment.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Grounds confined to points of law
A second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decree passed by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction lies only on matters of law and not on matters of mixed fact and law.
Civil Procedure — Duty of the First Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of evidence
A first appellate court must subject all the evidence adduced before the trial court to fresh scrutiny and reach its own conclusions on both law and fact, while bearing in mind that it had no opportunity to see and hear the witnesses.
Civil Procedure — Incomplete or Missing Record — Power to order a retrial
Where the record of a trial is incomplete or has gone missing and reconstruction is impossible, leaving insufficient material to determine the appeal, the appellate court has power under Order 43 rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside the judgment and order a new trial.
Civil Procedure — Retrial — Whether a travesty of justice
Quashing a judgment and ordering a retrial because a crucial part of the trial record is genuinely missing is not a travesty of justice or a denial of justice to the affected party.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2005)
  • Mitwalo Magyengo v Medadi Mutyaba (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1996)
  • Beatrice Kobusingye v Fiona Nyakana (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2013)
  • Charles Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985)
  • Edith Nantumbwe Kizito & Others v Miriam Kutesa (Civil Appeal No. 294 of 2013)
  • East African Steel Corporation Ltd v Statewide Insurance Co. Ltd [1998-2000] HCB 33
  • Nsimbe Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 2014)
  • Lubanga Jamada v Dr. Ddumba Edward (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Trade Envoys Limited v Wanyama & Another (Civil Appeal 106 of 2024) [2024] UGCA 198 (2 August 2024)
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.