Wakilii

Uganda Law Society and Isaac Ssemakadde v Tonny Tumukunde and Byamaziiima Joshua (Miscellaneous Application 81 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 73 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling dismissing an application to add the Attorney General as a necessary party in judicial review proceedings, and for stay of proceedings pending appeal
Decision
Leave to appeal granted; proceedings in the underlying judicial review stayed pending appeal

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 granted leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling that dismissed an application to add the Attorney General as a necessary party in judicial review proceedings. The court held that the applicants demonstrated a flickering chance of success on the ground that the trial judge failed to apply the Supreme Court test for necessary parties from Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd. The court further held that where leave to appeal is granted, a stay of proceedings follows as a matter of course to preserve the status quo, and accordingly stayed the underlying judicial review proceedings pending the appeal.

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted; proceedings in the underlying judicial review stayed pending appeal

Facts

The respondents filed judicial review proceedings (MC No. 228 of 2024) challenging an Executive Order issued by the President of the Uganda Law Society allegedly expelling the Attorney General and Solicitor General from the Uganda Law Society Council. The applicants filed an application (MA No. 1178 of 2024) seeking to add the Attorney General as a necessary party to the judicial review proceedings. On 17 January 2025, Hon. Justice Esta Nambayo dismissed the application to add the Attorney General. The applicants were dissatisfied with the ruling, contending that the trial judge disregarded the Supreme Court precedent in Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd on the test for necessary parties. The applicants filed a notice of appeal and brought this application seeking leave to appeal the interlocutory ruling and a stay of the judicial review proceedings pending appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application satisfies the parameters for grant of leave to appeal against an interlocutory ruling dismissing an application to add a necessary party.
  2. Whether the application satisfies the requirements for grant of an order for stay of proceedings pending appeal.

Orders

  • Leave granted to the applicants to file an appeal against the decision in High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1178 of 2024.
  • The appeal to be filed promptly, in any case not later than 14 days from date of this order.
  • Proceedings in Miscellaneous Cause No. 228 of 2024 stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Test for Grant of Leave
An applicant seeking leave to appeal must show either that the intended appeal has reasonable chances of success or that there are arguable grounds of appeal and the applicant has not been guilty of dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Necessary Parties — Test for Joinder — Attorney General as Necessary Party in Judicial Review
For a person to be joined as a necessary party, it must be shown either that the orders sought would legally affect that person's interests, or that joinder is desirable to avoid multiplicity of suits so that the person is bound by the court's decision. Where judicial review proceedings concern an executive order purporting to expel the Attorney General from a governing body, the Attorney General may be a necessary party because any decision on the validity of that expulsion would affect the Attorney General's interests.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Grant of Stay Following Leave to Appeal
Where leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling is granted, a stay of proceedings follows as a matter of course to preserve the status quo and prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Appeals — Multiplicity of Proceedings — Right to Appeal at Chosen Stage
In adversarial litigation, each party decides how to prosecute their case and may take advantage of all available avenues to articulate their side, including deciding at what stage to appeal if the appeal is permitted by law. The decision whether to appeal an interlocutory or final ruling lies with the party dissatisfied with the ruling, and a party cannot be compelled to wait until final determination to appeal interlocutory matters.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (12)

  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
  • Shah -Vs- Attorney General (1971) E.A 50
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd & Ors Vs Dresdner Bank A.G (1972) EA 17
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
  • Kato Lubwama v Habib Buwembo (Election Petition Application No. 2 of 2017)
  • Olweny and Others v Oyoo and Others (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2018)
  • Kato Lubwama v Buwembo (Election Petition Application No. 2 of 2017)
  • Nelson Gawala Wambuzi vs. Kenneth Lubogo
  • Margaret Zziwa v. Naava Nabagesera
  • Watoto Childcare Ministries v Dr. Fredrick Njuki & 3 Ors (Court of Appeal Misc. Application No. 221 and 135 of 2020)
  • Hannington Wasswa & others v Maria Ochola & 3 others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1995)
  • Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembui (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Law Society and Isaac Ssemakadde v Tonny Tumukunde and Byamaziiima Joshua (Miscellaneous Application 81 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 73 (17 June 2025)
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.